Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

 

[Thunk]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

How about we start with the basics....

 

[jackflash]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

EXCELLENT!!!

 

[jackflash]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

`

One must remember that religion drives a persons political views. GW/Climate Change is a religion(belief system). It is more rare than hens teeth that a person can change his/her entrenched religion no matter what or how many facts to the contrary are presented to the individual in question. It is just the 'human condition'.

 

[Hossfly]

So, a few climate "scientists" say the current cycle of hot weather and ice caps melting are caused by "man made global warming. (whatever that is) Then other scientists say the Earth's poles are shifting, bringing them closer to the sun (which has been blazing down on us for millions of years) causing ice caps to melt. Who to believe? Are we all gonna die? Will we ever have a White Christmas again? So many questions, so much mystery.

 

[jwoodie]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

Only small minded people rely on "consensus" rather than their brains.

 

[skookerasbil]

I started a thread in 2013 that is still going strong here in 2020. Nobody cared about global warming back then.......they still dont care. Once again, its nowhere on the radar in this election season except for fringe voters.

 

[Oddball]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

This is how you can tell the Warmers are an antiscience Cult. We're still testing Relativity and no one is shrieking about "Concensus!!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 393694

Hey MORON.
What is that?
Who is that?
Is it true?

What a ******* Idiot you are.
What a STUPID Meme post

You 12 IQ mental defective.

`

How Warmers do "Science"

Oh, that's at MIT, which used to be a top University

 

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

You started this out all VERY UNscientifically.. In science, a consensus requires a SINGLE very specific question.. What QUESTION is this consensus BASED ON? Can't give you references to authors or papers UNLESS YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC QUESTION..

Because GW ACTUALLY REQUIRES about 100 KEY QUESTIONS to have a "consensus" on the ENTIRE TOPIC.

Answer me this -- Is there a consensus on what the temperature is GONNA BE in 2100? Has it CHANGED in the past decade? Is there a consensus on the question of the ACCURACY of modeling to PREDICT even 50 or 100 years out?

I know the answers to THOSE questions -- NO !!! For the Temperature in 2100 -- Not within numbers that dont' have a 3:1 range of estimation.. And the RESULTS of those models have been constantly REVISED DOWN over 35 years.. Even in the past DECADE...

As to endorsements -- you're stuck in Climate Change kindergarten rhetoric.. All of those body endorsement are useless.. Haven't been REVISED in a couple decades, while all the hysterical, hair on fire projections have been beaten down..

WHY??? Because those statements are Front Office politics in those orgs. NARY A ONE was "voted on" or took contributions from the 1000s of members. I know. One of the two orgs I belong to has a GW statement. No members EVER contacted...

In FACT -- back in 2000s when the Australian Geophys Union ASKED for member input to REVISE their 15 yr old statement -- There was nastiness, and revolt and turmoil SOOO BAD -- they just dropped the prospect of UPDATING that statement..

So you're OP is wrong because you don't understand the PROCESS of fielding those statements or the timeline OR EVEN THE QUESTION that they answer as a CONSENSUS..

Try again later dude...

I;'ve got more than the citation below to back me up.. Show me you're interested..

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

 

[flacaltenn]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

No doubt that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and works like all other GH gases to keep you from instantly turning into a popsicle.. The question IS does CO2 have some supernatural powers over all the other GHGases which is what SOME scientists have postulated but not proven..

Water Vapor is by FAR the most predominant GH Gas and actually mutes the power of CO2.. Also CO2 increases are stunted by the fact that it's power to warn is exponentially limited as it INCREASES in Atmospheric concentration and is BLOCK by absorption bands that exist in water vapor..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

See the post above..

 

[flacaltenn]

`
View attachment 395785

`

So you're done now? That certainly settles that.. Folded rather quickly this time...

Are you aware that in just the past 5 years, scientists have discovered that the source of fast glacial calving in West Antarctica is increasingly likely to be due to ACTIVE VOLCANIC RIFTS under the coastal glaciers and NOT "air temperature"???

Shit on the internet STINKS forever.. Science moves constantly on.. You on board or just googling yourself?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

See the post above..

Its that magical multiplier that is in question... and that is what he must explain... As it sits today the base Log of CO2 is all it has in driving force. As you pointed out, water vapor kills its potential dead..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

See the post above..

Its that magical multiplier that is in question... and that is what he must explain... As it sits today the base Log of CO2 is all it has in driving force. As you pointed out, water vapor kills its potential dead..

Just as important is the false premise that CO2 has powers BEYOND the basic physics of other GH gases to cause ACCELERATION of the warming thru releasing sequestered frozen calthrates of CO2/Methane. If a degree or so of warming had the POWER to do that -- Man wouldn't be here. Because the previous recoveries from 4 diff Ice Ages would have caused the "runaway accelerations" and destroyed the livability of this junker of a planet.. Fact is the VAST MAJORITY of what's gonna melt and release CO2/CH4 has already been released. Not much RESTORED since before the LAST ice age..

Russian scientists who are sitting on the BIGGEST ground sequestered sources of frozen CO2/CH4 say that SEISMIC activity is MORE like to release these as gases than GW...

Just like Antarctica might melt -- but from VOLCANIC heating, not air temperature.. We're preparing for the WRONG DISASTERS because politics and stupidity and the web aren't tuned into science..

 

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

You started this out all VERY UNscientifically.. In science, a consensus requires a SINGLE very specific question.. What QUESTION is this consensus BASED ON? Can't give you references to authors or papers UNLESS YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC QUESTION..

Because GW ACTUALLY REQUIRES about 100 KEY QUESTIONS to have a "consensus" on the ENTIRE TOPIC.

Answer me this -- Is there a consensus on what the temperature is GONNA BE in 2100? Has it CHANGED in the past decade? Is there a consensus on the question of the ACCURACY of modeling to PREDICT even 50 or 100 years out?

I know the answers to THOSE questions -- NO !!! For the Temperature in 2100 -- Not within numbers that dont' have a 3:1 range of estimation.. And the RESULTS of those models have been constantly REVISED DOWN over 35 years.. Even in the past DECADE...

As to endorsements -- you're stuck in Climate Change kindergarten rhetoric.. All of those body endorsement are useless.. Haven't been REVISED in a couple decades, while all the hysterical, hair on fire projections have been beaten down..

WHY??? Because those statements are Front Office politics in those orgs. NARY A ONE was "voted on" or took contributions from the 1000s of members. I know. One of the two orgs I belong to has a GW statement. No members EVER contacted...

In FACT -- back in 2000s when the Australian Geophys Union ASKED for member input to REVISE their 15 yr old statement -- There was nastiness, and revolt and turmoil SOOO BAD -- they just dropped the prospect of UPDATING that statement..

So you're OP is wrong because you don't understand the PROCESS of fielding those statements or the timeline OR EVEN THE QUESTION that they answer as a CONSENSUS..

Try again later dude...

I;'ve got more than the citation below to back me up.. Show me you're interested..

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

Nice attempt at ambiguation.. AND PERSONAL IMTIMIDATION MESSAGING/Warning me.
With all the abuse I take her?
With 3 I had to put on ignore here yesterday for NO CONTENT Harassment. (ToddPatriot, JC456, Skooker)
You want to Play Mod now? Really?

What is it you right wingers say?
You were really TRIGGERED by the Clean Sweep of Scientific orgs worldwide.
The premise is stated.
If you want exact amount of change in 2100.. you are well into the demand detail Fallacy, especially on this dynamic system.
(and you yourself kinda admit some amount of "GW" is [shhh!] unused "AGW" [Shhh!] in your sticky thread above)
(but everyone who estimates more than you, which didn't even happen in my OP, is "Catastrophic" I guess.)

Gameover

`