Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

[Sunsettommy]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is.... I am waiting...

Like I said before, if you know something the vast majority of qualified scientists don't know then you should go get rich and famous. I look forward to reading about you.

You have been asked twice what the AGW is,

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at.

You are too stupid to realize that I just destroyed your claim that they are from conspiracy websites,

quoting YOU

"Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims."

I proved with the main links and posted examples of published science papers that they are NOT coming from "conspiracy websites", they are coming from science journals. In several postings, I have proved that there are many published science papers that disputed the idea that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate, your replies are all wind and piss, you can't disappear the reality that THOUSANDS of skeptical published science papers exist.

You should stop right here since you are being utterly DESTROYED in this thread.

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused.

The majority of them believe humans are impacting global temperature. Look above. Even the terd agreeing with you admitted that humans are impacting global temperature. The minority skeptic papers only dispute the role of CO2, not that humans are the culprit.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

 

[Confounding]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is.... I am waiting...

Like I said before, if you know something the vast majority of qualified scientists don't know then you should go get rich and famous. I look forward to reading about you.

You have been asked twice what the AGW is,

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at.

You are too stupid to realize that I just destroyed your claim that they are from conspiracy websites,

quoting YOU

"Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims."

I proved with the main links and posted examples of published science papers that they are NOT coming from "conspiracy websites", they are coming from science journals. In several postings, I have proved that there are many published science papers that disputed the idea that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate, your replies are all wind and piss, you can't disappear the reality that THOUSANDS of skeptical published science papers exist.

You should stop right here since you are being utterly DESTROYED in this thread.

Okay, I acknowledge that a minority of scientists have published studies within the last 50 years that call into question the role of CO2 in man made climate change. The majority still think CO2 plays a large role. and pretty much all of them are saying human activity plays a role.

 

[Billy_Bob]

impacting

You just admitted defeat because impacting is not controlling or a major player in ANYTHING!

Prove mans impact! Show me the science and math... Show me the empirical evidence proving your assumption...

How does it feel to get punked by a simple Masters Degree?

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

 

[Confounding]

impacting

You just admitted defeat because impacting is not controlling or a major player in ANYTHING!

Prove mans impact! Show me the science and math... Show me the empirical evidence proving your assumption...

How does it feel to get punked by a simple Masters Degree?

Most scientists agree humans play a large role in global temperature rise. A minority dispute the role of CO2, but still acknowledge that humans are causing the problem. How much they believe humans are impacting it varies, but most believe it is moderate or severe.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Never disputed that humans have some impact

LOL! Okay...

but strongly dispute that CO2 is the driver of it. That is the DOMINANT theme of the Thousands of papers that make clear that additional CO2 has a small role, examples of papers you never read:

So you admit that even the minority skeptic papers acknowledge that humans are impacting global temperature. They simply dispute how much of it is caused by CO2. Well, okay, but the majority of scientists who also agree that humans are impacting the environment think CO2 plays a significant role.

I have ALWAYS allowed for some CO2 effect you jackass! I have pointed out that it has a diminishing effect as they increase in the atmosphere and cause a greening world.

What I have been saying since I joined this forum that CO2 is NOT driving the warming trend or related weather events. I have repeatedly shown that the IPCC modeling scenarios are failures in the short term and doesn't have testability in the long term. I have shown that the IPCC's modeled per decade warming prediction/projections from 1990 onward are around 50% too warm.

CO2 by itself doesn't have a significant role, which even most warmists scientists agree. It is the Positive Feedback baloney they base their big warming projection trends on, not just the amount of CO2 molecules in the air.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Your imbecilic reliance of consensus proves YOU are a science illiterate.

 

[Confounding]

What I have been saying since I joined this forum that CO2 is NOT driving the warming trend or related weather events.

But you agree that humans are?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.

Nicely done...

You admit you don't have a fucking clue..

This is why so many believed the lie in the first place..

1.) Prove global temp changes are the result of mans impact.
2.) Show your work

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Your imbecilic reliance of consensus proves YOU are a science illiterate.

Yes, I am an imbecile for taking it seriously when the vast majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion about a subject tell us something about that subject.

 

[Confounding]

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.

Nicely done...

You admit you don't have a fucking clue..

This is why so many believed the lie in the first place..

1.) Prove global temp changes are the result of mans impact.
2.) Show your work

You're an idiot if you blow it off when the vast majority of experts in a field tell you something relating to their field. You think you know better than all of those scientists. That is astoundingly arrogant and stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Your imbecilic reliance of consensus proves YOU are a science illiterate.

He couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.. He has no clue about what he is spouting. The definition of useful idiot...

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Your imbecilic reliance of consensus proves YOU are a science illiterate.

He couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.. He has no clue about what he is spouting. The definition of useful idiot...

Again, if all of the scientists are wrong you should go make yourself famous, Dingus. Or do you have no idea what you're talking about? At least I have the humility to admit I'm not an expert that has dedicated my life to this subject. It's asinine to blow off what the vast majority of those scientists are saying. I think you might actually be insane.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is clear this little nebbish troll Confounding, refuses to answer questions given to him and still has yet to support this whopper:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Waiting.... waiting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.

Oh Contra... You are a huge fucking idiot...

You have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker... You don't even know what your pontificating about... You don't have a clue about the science involved.

You refuse to even acknowledge you don't know jack... and that is the most telling of all traits.. Your ignorant and wish to remain so...

 

[Confounding]

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.

He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.

A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.

Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..

Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.

Oh Contra... You are a huge fucking idiot...

You have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker... You don't even know what your pontificating about... You don't have a clue about the science involved.

You refuse to even acknowledge you don't know jack... and that is the most tell of all traits.. Your ignorant and wish to remain so...

I have a decent understanding of the science because I have done research and I'm not an idiot. I'm just not going to speak as if I'm an expert because I'm not an arrogant retard like you. There is a large scientific consensus that says humans are impacting global temperature. If you blow that off you're a jackass.