Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

Scientific consensus​

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.[1][2]

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[3][4][5][6] and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.[7][8][9] Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[10] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community, or consensus review articles[11] or surveys[12] may be published. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the Public sphere but Not necessarily controversial within the Scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[13][14] climate change,[15] the safety of genetically modified organisms,[16] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[10]

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia​

`

 

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

Reply 2.
My own words.

It's not just my default position, Consensus a FACT.
(science does not deal in proof but theories affirmed over time. AKA Consensus.
ie, Evo is not 'proven' but it is settled science/a fact.)
Every relevant Sci org in the world, and a consensus among Climate scientists ABOVE the famous 97% Now as the climate in the last decade has affirmed it yet more.
Yes There are a few objectors which Does NOT refute that. (nor do Evolution objectors)
I had a long running thread "Demonstrating/Evidencing" that.
Um.../again.

Wiki:

"Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

`

 

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 1024269​

​

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 11 Citation Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming.
From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset.
We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

`

Sounds awful!
How many new nuclear reactors should we build, to stop all the human caused climate change?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, on a side note off topic, today it was so cold here in Chitown, the wife asked me to turn on the furnace. So I did that, and then the furnace stopped warming. I try and stop it with the thermostat and it won't stop, so I had to power it off. I powered it back on and it failed in the same state. Call the repair company. Guy comes out, says the symptom sounds like a limiter switch to prevent damage and carbon dioxide poisoning. Reaches in and sure enough, limit switch is triggered, he resets it turns back on the power and the flame goes on again and the flame is outside the boundaries of the fire box, holy crap, we could die without that limit switch. phew, thankful. Now climate change cost me 12k. Good thing it's warming so I don't need a furnace anymore.......wait, oh yeah 12k for new furnace. fk these climate zombies.

Thank God you found the problem!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

We’re still testing Relativity

Because it is real science, if it fails on one datapoint, it must be discarded

 

[EMH]

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

Funny, since there is NO ACTUAL DATA supporting the theory that adding Co2 causes warming, just FUDGE....


100% of climate "scientists" are OK with the fact that there is precisely ZERO ACTUAL DATA to support what they claim, just FUDGE...

 

[Redfish]

Billy_Bob - checking in on the global cooling over the past couple of years.

View attachment 1024184




View attachment 1024182

even if true, we are not causing it, cannot stop it, and cannot reverse it. Its a natural process that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. What we can do is reduce pollution. It amazes me the not one of you libs thinks that man made pollution is a problem that we need to address. It's all climate change so you can extract money from us citizens. it's nothing but a money grab by the left and you fricken well know it.

 

[Crick]

even if true, we are not causing it

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? CO2, the second most powerful greenhouse gas has increased dramatically due to human use of fossil fuels? That is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced. What do you think is happening?

cannot stop it, and cannot reverse it.

If we caused it, we can stop causing it. Knowing what causes it, we can reverse it. However, neither will be easy.

Its a natural process that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

To what process are you referring?

What we can do is reduce pollution.

We can do both and more.

It amazes me the not one of you libs thinks that man made pollution is a problem that we need to address.

It amazes me that you would come to such a conclusion. Virtually ALL liberals and most conservatives think we should act to reduce and eliminate air and water pollution.

It's all climate change so you can extract money from us citizens.

What money is that?

it's nothing but a money grab by the left and you fricken well know it.

I know no such thing because your claim has no evidence in its favor and enormous amounts in opposition.

 

[jc456]

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? CO2, the second most powerful greenhouse gas has increased dramatically due to human use of fossil fuels? That is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced. What do you think is happening?

science can't prove it.

 

[jc456]

If we caused it, we can stop causing it. Knowing what causes it, we can reverse it. However, neither will be easy.

what is the problem you are solving?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Scientific consensus​

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.[1][2]

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[3][4][5][6] and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.[7][8][9] Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[10] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community, or consensus review articles[11] or surveys[12] may be published. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the Public sphere but Not necessarily controversial within the Scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[13][14] climate change,[15] the safety of genetically modified organisms,[16] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[10]

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia​

`

Here are the facts, you dunce: "concensus" means the lying Left pays off 'scientists' to say whatever the Left is pushing.



AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab


The steps of the scientific method are:

• Observe and ask a question: Start by making an observation and asking a question about it
  
  
  
• Research: Gather relevant background information
  
  
  
• Form a hypothesis: Create a testable explanation for why something happens
  
  
  
• Experiment: Test the hypothesis through an experiment
  
  
  
• Analyze the data: Carefully analyze the data from the experiment
  
  
  
• Draw a conclusion: Summarize the results and explain how they relate to the hypothesis
  
  
  
• Communicate the results: Share the results with others
  
  

The scientific method is a standardized approach to conducting experiments that helps limit bias and preconceived notions. It's a process that can be used to solve problems or conduct scientific investigations.





"Concensus" first said there would be global freezing, now it's global warming.



Wise up, you fool: it's simply about controllong morons like you:

 

[PoliticalChic]

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

1. “We began this experiment in 1933 under the pressure of an internal economic crisis. We continue and extend it under the necessities of a war crisis....It is born in crisis, lives on crisis, and cannot survive the era of crisis. By the very law of its nature it must create for itself, if it is to continue, fresh crises from year to year. …And our future is all charted out upon the same turbulent road of permanent crisis.” John T. Flynn, "As We Go Marching," p. 256


2. Patrick Moore (consultant)
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Patrick_Moore_(consu...
Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, an early member and past president of Greenpeace Canada.







3. AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Patrick Moore, a Canadian consultant and former Greenpeace president, has said that climate change will be seen as a myth. Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as disinformation and scare tactics. He claims that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and that the central theory about climate change is false because carbon dioxide levels were higher in the past. Moore has also said that natural factors have changed the climate many times throughout Earth's history and are still operating today.
Greenpeace's Ex-President - Is Climate Change Fake? - Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore is the Co-Founder & Ex-President of Greenpeace and an author. Cl...

4. And 50 blatant lies, from "Russia, Russia, Russia" to "Trump told Putin to do whatever he wanted to."



5. If they can't keep you frightened, you won't vote Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? CO2, the second most powerful greenhouse gas has increased dramatically due to human use of fossil fuels? That is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced. What do you think is happening?

If we caused it, we can stop causing it. Knowing what causes it, we can reverse it. However, neither will be easy.

To what process are you referring?

We can do both and more.

It amazes me that you would come to such a conclusion. Virtually ALL liberals and most conservatives think we should act to reduce and eliminate air and water pollution.

What money is that?

I know no such thing because your claim has no evidence in its favor and enormous amounts in opposition.

1. “We began this experiment in 1933 under the pressure of an internal economic crisis. We continue and extend it under the necessities of a war crisis....It is born in crisis, lives on crisis, and cannot survive the era of crisis. By the very law of its nature it must create for itself, if it is to continue, fresh crises from year to year. …And our future is all charted out upon the same turbulent road of permanent crisis.” John T. Flynn, "As We Go Marching," p. 256


2. Patrick Moore (consultant)
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Patrick_Moore_(consu...
Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, an early member and past president of Greenpeace Canada.







3. AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Patrick Moore, a Canadian consultant and former Greenpeace president, has said that climate change will be seen as a myth. Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as disinformation and scare tactics. He claims that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and that the central theory about climate change is false because carbon dioxide levels were higher in the past. Moore has also said that natural factors have changed the climate many times throughout Earth's history and are still operating today.
Greenpeace's Ex-President - Is Climate Change Fake? - Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore is the Co-Founder & Ex-President of Greenpeace and an author. Cl...

4. And 50 blatant lies, from "Russia, Russia, Russia" to "Trump told Putin to do whatever he wanted to."



5. If they can't keep you frightened, you won't vote Democrat.

 

[Redfish]

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? CO2, the second most powerful greenhouse gas has increased dramatically due to human use of fossil fuels? That is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced. What do you think is happening?

If we caused it, we can stop causing it. Knowing what causes it, we can reverse it. However, neither will be easy.

To what process are you referring?

We can do both and more.

It amazes me that you would come to such a conclusion. Virtually ALL liberals and most conservatives think we should act to reduce and eliminate air and water pollution.

What money is that?

I know no such thing because your claim has no evidence in its favor and enormous amounts in opposition.

all the hard evidence and more than half of the scientific community supports everything I said. But you are free to be a useful idiot for the marxists who are pushing AGW. it's your choice.

 

[Redfish]

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? CO2, the second most powerful greenhouse gas has increased dramatically due to human use of fossil fuels? That is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced. What do you think is happening?

If we caused it, we can stop causing it. Knowing what causes it, we can reverse it. However, neither will be easy.

To what process are you referring?

We can do both and more.

It amazes me that you would come to such a conclusion. Virtually ALL liberals and most conservatives think we should act to reduce and eliminate air and water pollution.

What money is that?

I know no such thing because your claim has no evidence in its favor and enormous amounts in opposition.

just on your money comments which show your true ignorance on this topic, How do you think the prophet of AGW, the great algore, became a multi millionaire? Answer: carbon credits and other bullshit sold to ignorant fools like you.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I started a thread about a climate hero who actually set himself on fire to bring attention to human caused global warming. But I think we need to get directly to the point. Human caused global warming is a reality. And you are all doomed. For the most part, the media won't tell you about it. Which is run by the wealthy. They dictate your lives in every way. And they have decided not only that you will die, but how you will die. That being with as much ignorance as possible. Not only have they decided that you must die, but no doubt for many they view it as a necessary thing. The only thing any of you will get out of the issue is lip service. Not real action.

Even on a couple different television shows they showed on PBS on the issue, they brought up often enough a feedback loop in global warming. They spoke fairly often how one thing will reinforce another thing. But I don't remember them ever saying what a a feedback loop would actually mean. It means that the warmer things get, the FASTER it will get even warmer. They also seem to like to speak often on TV about what the ocean levels will be in the year 2100. But it is unlikely any of you will see the year 2050.

Your time is short. How short exactly is hard to say. I would give it 20 to 30 years. The reason why is mainly methane. It is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Bill Nye did a show about it called Global meltdown. Regardless of how you may feel about Bill Nye, in part of the show he talked to an actual scientist who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. Though he was a tenured professor at some university, he decided to give up his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. And he said the worst culprit is methane. Like CO2, it is ever increasing. I will show you a graph of it. Astonishingly, despite things like thawing tundra, it is said that human activities are responsible for around 60% of it.

View attachment 651093

Or if you don't like that one, I have another.
View attachment 651094

One of the things that makes this so bad is that not in the history of the Earth have we ever been in this position. It the past of course it has been far warmer. But in more recent history it has been getting cooler. When things are cooler, of course more methane will have a chance to accumulate. Much gets buried underground of course. But not all of it. And when things start getting warmer faster as it is, that methane will have the ability to escape quickly. I will show you a graph of the Earths temperature to show what I am talking about.

View attachment 651095

Now for all those deniers out there, I will unload on you all of the human caused glob all warming graphs that I have. Feel free to deny away.

View attachment 651097
View attachment 651098

View attachment 651099

View attachment 651100

View attachment 651101

View attachment 651102

View attachment 651103

View attachment 651104

View attachment 651105

Lol, a "hero" that took themselves out of the gene pool. Transgenders and Alarmists, the two current mentally ill groups in society that get too much attention.

 

[abu afak]

So you found a dissenter from among Tens of Thousands you Quintuple spaced ReligioTard?
That does NOT refute the overwhelming Consensus I posted.
Gameover.

and his article in 2014 Saying warming was over/sopped/false?
He's a about as good a Skookeraasbil who did same with
his "Skeptics are winning" DISASTER.
OOOPS

FROM THE END OF 2014- 2023.

He Started the Wrongest thread EVER made here with his NINE Year running "Skeptics are Winning" thread in 2013-2022.
Nailed it!
Astonishing Call in 2013!

`

 

[jc456]

So you found a dissenter from among Tens of Thousands you Quintuple spaced ReligioTard?
That does NOT refute the overwhelming Consensus I posted.
Gameover.

and his article in 2014 Saying warming was over/sopped/false?
He's a about as good a Skookeraasbil who did same with
his "Skeptics are winning" DISASTER.
OOOPS

FROM THE END OF 2014- 2023.

He Started the Wrongest thread EVER made here with his NINE Year running "Skeptics are Winning" thread in 2013-2022.
Nailed it!
Astonishing Call in 2013!

`

Boring talking point meant to deflect

 

[Crick]

Once I ready that we "were all doomed", I discounted this thread as an AGW nut case...

We have been cooling, almost a full degree C in the last 9 years. There is no self-re-enforcing loop or "hot spot" in our atmosphere. Thus, everything this OP states is hogwash. Nothing more than left wing talking points without substance in empirical evidence or science.

Once I saw "Billy Boy", I discounted the comment as ignorant swill.