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

[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.
Click to expand...

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.


EDIT: Please Ignore Mentally Ill EMH as he makes the same absurd claims hour after hour.
Unfortunately this is USMB, not ie, PoliticalForum where he was quickly removed.
I just Repost over his posts to try and have a conversation with who I am addressing. Not him.
`

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

`

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.

 

[abu afak]

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.

There 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.

`

 

[jc456]

There 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.

`

No such thing in science, fail

 

[abu afak]

No such thing in science, fail

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

`

 

[ding]

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

`

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)).

 

[abu afak]

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)).

Yesd and half of them have Willy Soon it seems.. who cites himself.
Another of your Idiot claims.
`

 

[ding]

Yesd and hal;d of thenm have Wioll Sooon it seems.. who cites himself
Another of your Idiot claims.
`

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).

 

[jc456]

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

`

Hahaha, can’t make up demfks make believe!!

Opinion? Hahaha

 

[jc456]

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority

Read, your own post….. opinion if you can’t see that you’re plain stupid

 

[EMH]

argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change

When a fraud knows it is a fraud and has unlimited money to spend to cook up nonsense to keep the fraud going, the fraud will produce bogus "skeptic" theories.

The Sun The Sun IT MUST BE THE SUN BECAUSE MY BEAKED BIRDBRAIN CAN PARROT A STUDY THAT SAYS IT IS THE SUN!!!!!



So answer me this:

WHAT about Earth's climate has the SUN changed over the past 100 million years....???

Did the Sun melt North America and freeze Greenland at the same time???

Is the Sun responsible for ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland and at the same time trees and moose north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?

Is the Sun responsible for the fact that one Earth polar circle has 9+ times the ice of the other?




The SUN, the SUN, I have a BEAK and a BIRDBRAIN and I LOVE TO PARROT "THE SUN!!!!"


Sun in a constant for Earth climate change. The studies you parrot are FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD SO THAT MORON SKEPTIC IDIOTS LIKE YOU WILL PARROT THEM!!!

 

[Crick]

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).

Pray tell, how does this prove Abu's consensus statement is wrong?

 

[ding]

Pray tell, how does this prove Abu's consensus statement is wrong?

Because different scientists reach different conclusions about the cause of the recent warming trend.

 

[Crick]

Because different scientists reach different conclusions about the cause of the recent warming trend.

If you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.

 

[ding]

If you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.

Incorrect. I only need to point out that it depends upon what datasets are used.

 

[EMH]

the cause of the recent warming trend

It is called Urban Heat Sink (or Island) Effect.

Urban areas are 1 to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped land. As an urban area grows, it warms. Nashville for example has doubled in the past 30 years... so it is "warming" because of cough cough "Global Warming" aka Co2 (which is not warming anything) because that's where Surface Ground has records - WHERE PEOPLE LIVE...


Other than Urban Heat Sink Effect, your side has NO WARMING in the raw data at all, ZERO....

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ongoing NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. I only need to point out that it depends upon what datasets are used.

Back to that? So you're abandoning your contention that your posts (#406 and #408) "prove" our consensus claims wrong?

 

[ding]

Back to that? So you're abandoning your contention that your posts (#406 and #408) "prove" our consensus claims wrong?

No, that's just how you see it. It's a controversial subject. The push for arguing consensus is political.

 

[jc456]

If you want to say something about the existence or non-existence of a consensus, you need numbers. Showing some doesn't do it.

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 exercise

 

[Crick]

No, that's just how you see it. It's a controversial subject. The push for arguing consensus is political.

You claimed to have proved Abu Afak's consensus statement wrong. Please explain how so or withdraw this claim.