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

The Arctic Ocean occupies about 6 million square miles around Earth's North Pole. Historically, most of the surface of the Arctic Ocean remained ice-covered year round. Around this core of year-round ice was a fringe of seasonal ice that froze each winter and melted each summer.


  • Seasonal cycle
    The Arctic Ocean's sea ice grows and shrinks throughout the year:
    • Fall and winter
      Sea ice forms as the Arctic receives less sunlight and temperatures drop. The ice reaches its maximum extent in early March.


    • Spring and summer
      The ice melts back as temperatures rise and more sunlight reaches the Arctic. The ice reaches its minimum extent in September.


    • Year-round sea ice
      Some of the ice survives the summer melt season and grows thicker and less salty. This ice is more resistant to melting.



Antarctic Sea Ice set new record highs regularly until homO launched a "new satellite" in 2014.

There is a reason for the discrepancy. The Arctic Ocean is growing, pushing land out of the polar circle and replacing it with a growing ocean. That's why it is WARMING... liquid water replacing land... LIQUID WATER....

On the other pole Antarctica continues its 40+ million year continent specific ice age and hence keeps increasing the sea ice there, unless you believe the bullshit from homO's 2014 satellite, launched two years after homO hid the FBI case in the CLOSET...


 
take away the WATER WARMER THAN FREEZING and .... what, water isn't there...???

LOL!!!

To FREEZE SOMETHING you need something below FREEZING and WATER BY DEFINITION IS NOT, you absolute MORON.
Ocean currents are responsible for distributing heat. Lots of factors involved for glaciation but the two biggest factors are polar regions being thermal isolation from warm marine currents and temperature. 50 million years ago the polar regions were isolated from warm marine currents but temperatures were too high. As the planet slowly cooled, glaciation occurred first on the southern pole and then later on the northern pole.
F2.large.jpg
 
Antarctic Sea Ice set new record highs regularly until homO launched a "new satellite" in 2014.

There is a reason for the discrepancy. The Arctic Ocean is growing, pushing land out of the polar circle and replacing it with a growing ocean. That's why it is WARMING... liquid water replacing land... LIQUID WATER....

On the other pole Antarctica continues its 40+ million year continent specific ice age and hence keeps increasing the sea ice there, unless you believe the bullshit from homO's 2014 satellite, launched two years after homO hid the FBI case in the CLOSET...


Take that circulation of heat away from the Arctic and the northern hemisphere will glaciate which will cause the atmosphere and the oceans to cool.
1729966687725.png




Data which shows the oceans and atmosphere warming and cooling
ocean temperature.png




What the planet has been doing for the past 3 million years
glacial cycles.gif




The consequences of AMOC switching off
1729967019311.png



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126...rds, it has,under a slowly developing forcing.
 

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues
en.wikipedia.org



Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[sizee=5]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`
 

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues
en.wikipedia.org



Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[sizee=5]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`

$76 trillion!
 

Cheapest source of Fossil Fuel Generation is Double the Cost of Utility-scale Solar

Solar Levelized Cost (Day, Night, Season) of electricity (LCOE) has fallen to $29 to $92 per MWh, said a report from Lazard.
June 11, 2024

Lazard released its annual report analyzing levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), a critical measure of cost-efficiency of generation sources across technology types. The report found that onshore wind and utility-scale solar have the lowest LCOE by a large margin.

LCOE measures Lifetime costs divided by energy production and calculates the present value of the total cost of building and operating a power plant over an assumed lifetime.


“Despite high end LCOE declines for selected renewable energy technologies, the low ends of our LCOE have increased for the first time ever, driven by the persistence of certain cost pressures (e.g., high interest rates, etc.),” said Lazard. “These two phenomena result in tighter LCOE ranges (offsetting the significant range expansion observed last year) and relatively stable LCOE averages year-over-year.”

Onshore wind ranked as the lowest source of new-build electricity generation, ranging from $27 to $73 per MWh. Utility-scale solar was a close second, ranging $29 to $92 per MWh.

Utility-scale solar has had the most aggressive cost reduction curve of all technologies, falling about 83% since 2009, when new build solar generation had an LCOE of over $350 per MWh.
[.......]



Cheapest source of fossil fuel generation is double the cost of utility-scale solar

Solar Levelized Cost (Day, Night, Season) of electricity (LCOE) has fallen to $29 to $92 per MWh, said a report from Lazard.

`
 
Last edited:

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues
en.wikipedia.org



Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[sizee=5]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`
What’s the problem they are looking at?
 

Cheapest source of Fossil Fuel Generation is Double the Cost of Utility-scale Solar

Solar Levelized Cost (Day, Night, Season) of electricity (LCOE) has fallen to $29 to $92 per MWh, said a report from Lazard.
June 11, 2024

Lazard released its annual report analyzing levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), a critical measure of cost-efficiency of generation sources across technology types. The report found that onshore wind and utility-scale solar have the lowest LCOE by a large margin.

LCOE measures Lifetime costs divided by energy production and calculates the present value of the total cost of building and operating a power plant over an assumed lifetime.


“Despite high end LCOE declines for selected renewable energy technologies, the low ends of our LCOE have increased for the first time ever, driven by the persistence of certain cost pressures (e.g., high interest rates, etc.),” said Lazard. “These two phenomena result in tighter LCOE ranges (offsetting the significant range expansion observed last year) and relatively stable LCOE averages year-over-year.”

Onshore wind ranked as the lowest source of new-build electricity generation, ranging from $27 to $73 per MWh. Utility-scale solar was a close second, ranging $29 to $92 per MWh.

Utility-scale solar has had the most aggressive cost reduction curve of all technologies, falling about 83% since 2009, when new build solar generation had an LCOE of over $350 per MWh.
[.......]



Cheapest source of fossil fuel generation is double the cost of utility-scale solar

Solar Levelized Cost (Day, Night, Season) of electricity (LCOE) has fallen to $29 to $92 per MWh, said a report from Lazard.

`
You've been screeching that for years and it STILL isn't true!
 
You've been screeching that for years and it STILL isn't true!
And you've been here app 15 YEARS (including being a DEMOTED Mod) and you still don't know how debate works.
Emptily Disagreeing/"No" is not rebuttal to anything, much less sourced posts. (and I've put up hundreds)
You are truly Stupid.
`
 
Last edited:
And you've been here app 15 YEARS (including being a DEMOTED Mod) and you still don't know how debate works.
Emptily Disagreeing/"No" is not rebuttal to anything, much less sourced posts. (and I've put up hundreds)
You are truly Stupid.
`
Screeches the moron who has been posting idiotic bullshit for YEARS here.
 
And you've been here app 15 YEARS (including being a DEMOTED Mod) and you still don't know how debate works.
Emptily Disagreeing/"No" is not rebuttal to anything, much less sourced posts. (and I've put up hundreds)
You are truly Stupid.
`
Why can’t you identify the problem?
 
Again: And you've been here app 15 YEARS (including being a DEMOTED Mod) and you still don't know how debate works.
Emptily Disagreeing/"No" is not rebuttal to anything, much less sourced posts. (and I've put up hundreds)
You are truly Stupid.
`
And that’s not debating
 
Screeches the moron who has been posting idiotic bullshit for YEARS here.

Again: And you've been here app 15 YEARS (including being a DEMOTED Mod) and you still don't know how debate works.
Emptily Disagreeing/"No" is not rebuttal to anything, much less sourced posts. (and I've put up Hundreds of Links in support of AGW/Climate Change)
You are truly Stupid.
`
 
Screeches is a good description of her posts.

Don't bring up any college science in front of her ... talk about instant menstruation ...

I use Wikipedia ... but I use it as an encyclopedia ... not as a textbook ... it's a good place to verify what I've learned from the textbooks ... but without the textbook learning, the encyclopedia can be confusing to learn from ... encyclopedias aren't written to educate folks, they're written to provide detailed and accurate information, which sometimes has to start at an elevated level ...

How can we discuss global warming with folks who don't know what the 2LoT requires? ... good luck ciphering out the article on Wikipedia ...
 
Don't bring up any college science in front of her ... talk about instant menstruation ...

I use Wikipedia ... but I use it as an encyclopedia ... not as a textbook ... it's a good place to verify what I've learned from the textbooks ... but without the textbook learning, the encyclopedia can be confusing to learn from ... encyclopedias aren't written to educate folks, they're written to provide detailed and accurate information, which sometimes has to start at an elevated level ...

How can we discuss global warming with folks who don't know what the 2LoT requires? ... good luck ciphering out the article on Wikipedia ...
My two biggest complaints with climate scientists is that they don't actually discuss climate in the context of earth's climate history and their made up climate sensitivity assumes all warming is from CO2 when earth's climate history clearly shows significant natural climate fluctuations when the planet entered the current ice age 3 million years ago.

Idiots like EMH and Apu only serve to muddy the water.
 

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill ...

Harvard Gazette
https://news.harvard.edu › gazette › story › 2023/01
Jan 12, 2023 — Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy' starting in the 1970s. Projections created ...


Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › exxon-k...
Oct 26, 2015 — A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote ...


Exxon Scientists Predicted Global Warming, Even as ...

The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › 2023/01/12 › climate › exx...
Jan 12, 2023 — Global warming projections made or recorded by ExxonMobil scientists between 1977 and 2003 closely tracked with observed temperature increases.


Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in ...

Inside Climate News
https://insideclimatenews.org › News
May 2, 2024 — David, the head of Exxon Research, told a global warming conference financed by Exxon in October 1982 that “few people doubt that the world ...


Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections

Science | AAAS

https://www.science.org › doi › science.abk0063

by G Supran · 2023 · Cited by 152 — Accurate and skillful climate modeling. Overall, ExxonMobil's global warming projections closely track subsequent observed temperature increases ...


Exxon climate predictions were accurate decades ago. Still ...

NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2023/01/12 › exxon-climate-pre...
Jan 12, 2023 — Exxon's climate research decades back painted an accurate picture of global warming, according to a new scientific paper.


Revealed: Exxon made 'breathtakingly' accurate climate ...

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › business › jan › exxon-...
Jan 12, 2023 — The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science ...


Exxon's Own Models Predicted Global Warming

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › exxons-o...


Jan 13, 2023 — Exxon's Own Models Predicted Global Warming—It Ignored Them. Scientists working for the oil giant Exxon in the 1970s and 1980s estimated ...

Exxon predicted global warming with remarkable accuracy

CNBC

https://www.cnbc.com › 2023/01/12 › exxon-predicted...

Jan 12, 2023 — "We now have airtight, unimpeachable evidence that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly ...


Exxon scientists knew almost exactly how bad climate ...

Fortune
https://fortune.com › 2023/01/12 › exxon-scientists-clim...

Jan 12, 2023 — It “gives us airtight evidence that Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming years before, then turned around and attacked the science ...


`
 
Back
Top Bottom