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

[jc456]

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

You still haven’t given us a climate scientist that you can post and their experiment, withdraw your claim

 

[ding]

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

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

 

[EMH]

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

We do not need to pay these sick fudgebaking liars.

We only need DATA.

And the DATA, the unfudged DATA, shows NO WARMING except from Urban Heat, which is still not warming atmosphere....

 

[abu afak]

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

This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.

`

 

[Crick]

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

Scientists around the world have looked at all kinds of data and they have come to conclusions about them. You act as if you have some secret dataset that's the only one that shows the truth but no one but you has seen it.

 

[EMH]

This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.

`

You are a

 

[EMH]

Scientists around the world have looked at all kinds of data and they have come to conclusions about them

They all agree they should continue to receive taxpayer funding by fudging the data and claiming "warming" that does not exist.

 

[ding]

This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.

`

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Scientists around the world have looked at all kinds of data and they have come to conclusions about them. You act as if you have some secret dataset that's the only one that shows the truth but no one but you has seen it.

No. I act like someone who understands that using different datasets can yield different conclusions.

 

[EMH]

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."




Translation =

Your outside thermometer says it is 70F outside. Your have 2 choices.

Accept that it is 70F outside.

Fudge the "data" to claim it is 80F and blame Co2 for it



There is NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING ONGING. The only "evidence" of atmospheric warming is pathetically laughable FUDGE...

 

[Crick]

No. I act like someone who understands that using different datasets can yield different conclusions.

How many datasets do you think reality supports?

 

[jc456]

This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.

`

I presented a list of 30,000, how many agree with AGW, 75 of 77? hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

How many datasets do you think reality supports?

There are no complete sets, zip, no way to get the data. It's all a hoax, been a hoax, continues as a hoax and I'll continue to call it out as a hoax. Fact

 

[abu afak]

ding Posting ONE STUDY (or 10) is of course NO answer to the claim of huge Consensus.
Dishonest and non sequitur.
He has none.

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

This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find Dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.
- - - -- - - -

The Huge Consensus Remains untouched by Lost and dishonest-ding-dong.
`

 

[Crick]

Ding is frustrating because he gets a thought in his head that he thinks is really significant but he seems to be almost unable to examine it critically - Like EMH and his ice age nonsense. In the case of this bit where scientists come to different conclusions when they look at different data - he believes that the data they are being shown is inaccurate or fraudulent or fabricated, but he doesn't come out and say that any more because, of course, he has no evidence that that's the case. That scientists conclusions depend on the data they examine tells me that scientists are following the data, like they're supposed to. Without his claim of fraud, the bit says nothing else. But I guess he keeps hoping.

 

[jc456]

ding Posting ONE STUDY (or 10) is of course NO answer to the claim of huge Consensus.
Dishonest and non sequitur.
He has none.


This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find Dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.
- - - -- - - -

The Huge Consensus Remains untouched by Lost and dishonest-ding-dong.
`

and yet there is only 75 out of the entire list of scientists. There are hundreds of thousands of them. 75!!! Fact!

You've never once provided the names!!!!

 

[Crick]

and yet there is only 75 out of the entire list of scientists. There are hundreds of thousands of them. 75!!! Fact!

You've never once provided the names!!!!

You are trolling

 

[jc456]

You are trolling

I understand your position, you have nothing to share except IPCC

 

[BackAgain]

If we had a national referendum and the majority of voters dismissed the AGW claim as liberal propaganda, that would be a meaningful consensus.

And yet, consensus still has exactly nothing to do with science.

 

[jc456]

You are trolling

Look at the fish I caught