Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it's a worldwide Conspiracy and Tens of thousands are in on it worldwide.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.
Click to expand...
Since you draw all kinds of ridiculous conclusions from what I post I'll just pat you on the head, observe that I could say the sky is cloudy today and you would demand a source and rate it fake news, and wish you a nice afternoon.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.
`
There is a humongous consensus on AGW:Since you draw all kinds of ridiculous conclusions from what I post I'll just pat you on the head, observe that I could say the sky is cloudy today and you would demand a source and rate it fake news, and wish you a nice afternoon.
No such thing in science, failThere is a humongous consensus on AGW:
98% of Climate scientists, and 100% of appropriate World Science orgs.
But you"read some reports."
You STUPID ASSHOLE/EMPTY FRAUD.
`
Wiki:No such thing in science, fail
There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.Wiki:
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
en.wikipedia.org
`
Yesd and half of them have Willy Soon it seems.. who cites himself.There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.
For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).
I'm proving your consensus statement is wrong.Yesd and hal;d of thenm have Wioll Sooon it seems.. who cites himself
Another of your Idiot claims.
`
Hahaha, can’t make up demfks make believe!!Wiki:
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
`
Read, your own post….. opinion if you can’t see that you’re plain stupidScientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority
argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change
Pray tell, how does this prove Abu's consensus statement is wrong?I'm proving your consensus statement is wrong.
Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.
For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).
Because different scientists reach different conclusions about the cause of the recent warming trend.Pray tell, how does this prove Abu's consensus statement is wrong?
If you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.Because different scientists reach different conclusions about the cause of the recent warming trend.
Incorrect. I only need to point out that it depends upon what datasets are used.If you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.
the cause of the recent warming trend
Back to that? So you're abandoning your contention that your posts (#406 and #408) "prove" our consensus claims wrong?Incorrect. I only need to point out that it depends upon what datasets are used.
No, that's just how you see it. It's a controversial subject. The push for arguing consensus is political.Back to that? So you're abandoning your contention that your posts (#406 and #408) "prove" our consensus claims wrong?
Dude. You ignore everything presented. You are trolling now after being shown more scientists who oppose your ignorance. Putting it up again is a useless exerciseIf you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.
You claimed to have proved Abu Afak's consensus statement wrong. Please explain how so or withdraw this claim.No, that's just how you see it. It's a controversial subject. The push for arguing consensus is political.
