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

[jc456]

Hahahaha hahaha... this: Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment

Made up demofks shit. Cause the models said differently therefore we must adjust the real data!

Yeppers

 

[Crick]

Made up demofks shit. Cause the models said differently therefore we must adjust the real data!

Yeppers

You are precisely the useless troll I said you were earlier. I thought it might be possible to get somewhere with you but you've simply chosen to plumb depths of ignorance that are beyond me.

 

[jc456]

You are precisely the useless troll I said you were earlier. I thought it might be possible to get somewhere with you but you've simply chosen to plumb depths of ignorance that are beyond me.

yep, my brilliance your bullshit.

 

[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]..

`

`

`

 

[EMH]

Opposing the AGW "consensus" = the DATA

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the Oceans
NO ongoing Net ICE Melt
NO Breakout in Canes
NO Ocean Rise


Nothing. "Global Warming" only "exists" in models and simulations, not REALITY...


Those darn "denier" thermometers!!!

 

[jc456]

`

you peer reviewed yourself? hahahahahahahahaha so that's how they do it.

 

[jc456]

you peer reviewed yourself? hahahahahahahahaha so that's how they do it.

I peer reviewed myself and I'm far better at this than abu.

 

[EMH]

Made up demofks shit. Cause the models said differently therefore we must adjust the real data!

Yeppers

You can't make that up.

Their claim is exactly that - screw the ACTUAL DATA showing NO WARMING and just trust our "models" and "simulations."

The ACTUAL DATA actually disproves the models and simulations 100%

 

[abu afak]

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

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 11Citation Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005DOI 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.

`

 

[jc456]

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

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 11Citation Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005DOI 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.

`

you can't be this fking stupid can you?

Global Warming Petition Project

 

[abu afak]

Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.

Aboob Dumfuk.

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.
As I explained in my last..
Consensus takes DECADES of Consistent Experiments and observations by THOUSANDS OF Scientists.
It IS only consensus BECAUSE of a gigantic amount of consistent Scientific Method over decades.

you lose BlackAgain. the illiterate POS conspiracYst.
Last word away/one-line Scvmbag.

`

 

[jc456]

Consensus

No such thing in the science

 

[mamooth]

As temperatures climb, the deniers are getting quieter.

Well, at least the smarter ones are.

 

[jc456]

As temperatures climb, the deniers are getting quieter.

Well, at least the smarter ones are.

It’s summer, why wouldn’t temperature rise? Do you know about the seasons? Hahaha

 

[mamooth]

It’s summer, why wouldn’t temperature rise? Do you know about the seasons? Hahaha

And my point about the smarter ones staying quiet is made.

 

[jc456]

And my point about the smarter ones staying quiet is made.

What else were you referring to?

 

[BackAgain]

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.

No it does not, you lying sack of stupid.

As I explained in my last..
Consensus takes DECADES of Consistent Experiments and observations by THOUSANDS OF Scientists.
It IS only consensus BECAUSE of a gigantic amount of consistent Scientific Method over decades.

you lose BlackAgain. the illiterate POS conspiracYst.
Last word away/one-line Scvmbag.

`

Bullshit. Consensus takes a lot of high school “science” teachers pretending to know what the actual science they are agreeing with actually means.

I’m sorry you are frustrated that you don’t always get to screw up your “last word.” Try not to commmit suicide over your ineffectiveness.


;



,


::



.



;

 

[EMH]

As temperatures climb, the deniers are getting quieter.

Well, at least the smarter ones are.

LOL!!!

You have no warming in the atmosphere.

The only "warming" you have is Urban Heat Sink Effect and FUDGE.

 

[abu afak]

But I can see that pretty much ONLY scientists and or media reporting it whose funding or livelihood depends on supporting AGW driven climate change are pushing the concept. And they do not push it as scientists for whom certainty is a very big word but as politicians with an agenda. I have seen multiple reports in which scientific data was manipulated, misrepresented, omitted to be sure the conclusions would be AGW caused climate change.

I have seen case after case where those challenging the AGW climate change doctrine have been fired, silenced, attacked which removes the whole thing from science and puts it squarely into the realm of religion/ideology/political agenda.

And all that contributes strongly to justification for reasonable doubt.

Yes, it's a worldwide Conspiracy and Tens of thousands are in on it worldwide.
But you "have seen reports" to the contrary you HAVE NOT CITED ... from BS sources.
Yep.

`

 

[EMH]

Yes, it's a worldwide Conspiracy and Tens of thousands are in on it worldwide.
But you "have seen reports" to the contrary you HAVE NOT CITED ... from BS sources.
Yep.

`

A fraud is a fraud. There must be a conspiracy by those behind the fraud to keep the fraud going. In this case, the fraud is sponsored by the most addictive substance known

GOVERNMENT CHECKS

Admit the truth of the satellite and balloon data all along and

Lose job
file for unemployment

or

fudge the data and keep bilking the taxpayer over nothing


As decade after decade has passed and Earth has not warmed at all, more people notice, and this "consensus" of conflicted liars is just a consensus that we should keep paying them to lie to us and fudge data to justify it, not to mention raising taxes and growing government of all kinds to get a slice of "climate funding."

Then there are the attorneys, overwhelmingly left wing, eager to sue sue sue over Co2...

And there is a "consensus" of attorneys getting rich off Co2 fraud that the Co2 fraud should continue to enrich them....