Bing answers CO2 question

[EMH]

So, you don’t know what “consensus” means do you.

There is a "consensus" of taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars that we should continue to fund them.... nothing more.

 

[EMH]

Yes. Alleged consensus.

And “consensus” is meaningless anyway.

;

There was once a consensus that Earth was flat...

 

[EMH]

NO National or International Scientific body any longer rejects the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change

A lie since Russia does publicly...

 

[jc456]

Or you can just Fking Google your concerns to climate research facilities who do all this shit on a regular basis.

What facility is that?

 

[BackAgain]

Assuming you know that the word “ consensus” just means “general agreement among the plurality” of a group; you assuming that’s meaningless simple means you listen to instead the few scatter brains who are outside of the community of climate science practiced by every university, Govt agency and related corporation in the world. Really, there is no one left for your side but fools.

Dragqueenie, what you are unwilling to grasp or acknowledge how that consensus is not a part of the scientific method.

You’re too dim to even understand why that’s significant. Now, go play in traffic.

 

[Dagosa]

Dragqueenie, what you are unwilling to grasp or acknowledge how that consensus is not a part of the scientific method.

You’re too dim to even understand why that’s significant. Now, go play in traffic.

For someone who doesn’t even know what the word means, you’re making pretty stupid conjectures about the topic, bozo. Obviously you’re a science illiterate.

 

[BackAgain]

For someone who doesn’t even know what the word means, you’re making pretty stupid conjectures about the topic, bozo. Obviously you’re a science illiterate.

Nah. Everyone who understands the term “scientific method” knows it doesn’t involve “consensus.”

I return you, now, to you always overflowing supply of ignorance.

 

[Dagosa]

Nah. Everyone who understands the term “scientific method” knows it doesn’t involve “consensus.”

I return you, now, to you always overflowing supply of ignorance.

Only the group troglodytes who can’t open a dictionary and read it.

 

[Dagosa]

Nah. Everyone who understands the term “scientific method” knows it doesn’t involve “consensus.”

I return you, now, to you always overflowing supply of ignorance.

”A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.”

Gee, it has the word “consensus” in it. BFD. You like to pretend you are smart and keep saying consensus isn’t part of the “scientific method”. No one knows what you are talking about….you are stupid. The word “goat” isn’t part of the scientific method either. Fk nuts.

 

[Dagosa]

Everyone who understands the term “scientific method”

That doesn’t include you.

 

[BackAgain]

Only the group troglodytes who can’t open a dictionary and read it.

Your ncoherence may not be all your fault. It seems to be spreading in your libtard community.

The correct answer is that the concept of “consensus” has zero role in the scientific method.

 

[BackAgain]

”A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.”

Gee, it has the word “consensus” in it. BFD. You like to pretend you are smart and keep saying consensus isn’t part of the “scientific method”. No one knows what you are talking about….you are stupid. The word “goat” isn’t part of the scientific method either. Fk nuts.

Irrelevant.

 

[BackAgain]

That doesn’t include you.

It actually does. It excludes you.

 

[gtopa1]

• Mar 28, 2023

Climate sensitivity TO CO2.

So Crusader Bimbo has No answer for his STUNNING Idiocy in Not being able to look up Climate sensitivity (CO2 vs Temp)... despite other debates here on the topic.
(it rises app 3C/5.4F for every doubling)
He thought it had virtually none or went out to 3, 4, 5 decimal places.

Not being able to look up the unbelievably simple schoolhouse experiments in a container for CO2 heat trapping... (he asked for but couldn't google).

and instead is merely Repeating his answered questions/Lies, and posting Large Pictures to bury his loss/Stupidity...
.
`

ClimateTV – LIVE at 1PM EDT – ‘Climate and Energy Potpourri’

This week’s Climate Change Roundtable, Climate and Energy Potpourri is a show about nothing and everything. Host Anthony Watts and expert panelists Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken disc…

wattsupwiththat.com

You're a dope!!

Greg

 

[Dagosa]

Irrelevant.

Of course it is, when it shows you don’t have a clue what you’re posting and just quoting the denier Tripe.
Gives another laugh and remind us how every climate science institute at every university and research facility in the world, is wrong. Tell us again.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course it is, when it shows you don’t have a clue what you’re posting and just quoting the denier Tripe.

No ma’am. It’s irrelevant because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

You’re a retard.

 

[Dagosa]

No ma’am. It’s irrelevant because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

You’re a retard.

It has everything… you’re pretending you know wtf you’re talking about just spewing made up shit. I’m the retard according to you because you stand by the idiots and I agree with MIT, Cornell and 30 k other climate science related institutes.

 

[BackAgain]

It has everything… you’re pretending you know wtf you’re talking about just spewing made up shit. I’m the retard according to you because you stand by the idiots and I agree with MIT, Cornell and 30 k other climate science related institutes.

If you understood what the scientific method was (which you don’t) even you would have to concede, if you were honest (which you aren’t) that “consensus” plays zero role in the scientific method.

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

Find “consensus” in any of those steps. Go.

You asshole.

 

[Dagosa]

if you were honest (which you aren’t) that “consensus” plays zero role in the scientific method.

Are you a nit wit all the time ? Ah, why would it be part of the scientific method foolish ? Explain.
There are lots of words that aren’t in the scientific method.
Explain why it’s important that the word “consensus” has to be in “scientific method“.

 

[BackAgain]

Are you a nit wit all the time ? Ah, why would it be part of the scientific method foolish ? Explain.

See? You are a disingenuous gasbag hack.

You’ve been arguing with me all along despite the fact that all along my claim has gone unchanged. Now that you have been exposed, you belatedly attempt to switch the question.

Again, for you and other wickedly stupid hacks like you: consensus has exactly nothing to do with the scientific method. Many of your fellow AGW Faithful point to “consensus” as though it proved diddly dog about your religious proclamations. It doesn’t.