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

[flacaltenn]

You absolutely can have a scientific consensus about whether it's happening at all.
That is the only assertion of the OP.

That tells you NOTHING about FUTURE IMPACT or planning to mitigate. I'll join the 97% "consensus" that you worship because I KNOW the earth has seen a mild warming in the 30 year span that we've had adequate tools to measure the "fever of the earth" to 0.01DegC per year..

Doesn't tell you what the anomaly will be in 2100.
Doesn't tell you how reliable the models are NEEDED to predict it.
Doesn't tell you WHAT TO EXPECT in terms of weather, ocean rise, etc..

THAT QUESTION -- is useless.. And CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH to sustain a movement asking for WORLDWIDE distribution of money and humbling of economies... m

 

[ding]

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]..

`

`

Remind me again which third world country you live in.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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]..

`

`

Agw is nothing but a conspiracy theory until they produce irrefutable scientific evidence that man is changing the global climate with his miniscule co2 output

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd be happy with an accounting of the CO2 emissions ... we know we release 35 gigatonnes into the atmosphere per year ... yet we can only find 17 gigatonnes per year ... half our emissions seem to just disappear ... we can speculate all day long where it could be going ... but consensus on speculation is still speculation ... not proof ...

 

[ding]

I'd be happy with an accounting of the CO2 emissions ... we know we release 35 gigatonnes into the atmosphere per year ... yet we can only find 17 gigatonnes per year ... half our emissions seem to just disappear ... we can speculate all day long where it could be going ... but consensus on speculation is still speculation ... not proof ...

Where else could it go but the ocean and plants?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd be happy with an accounting of the CO2 emissions ... we know we release 35 gigatonnes into the atmosphere per year ... yet we can only find 17 gigatonnes per year ... half our emissions seem to just disappear ... we can speculate all day long where it could be going ... but consensus on speculation is still speculation ... not proof ...

Where else could it go but the ocean and plants?

Measure it ... or you got nothing ...

 

[ding]

I'd be happy with an accounting of the CO2 emissions ... we know we release 35 gigatonnes into the atmosphere per year ... yet we can only find 17 gigatonnes per year ... half our emissions seem to just disappear ... we can speculate all day long where it could be going ... but consensus on speculation is still speculation ... not proof ...

Where else could it go but the ocean and plants?

Measure it ... or you got nothing ...

That’s not entirely true. We know it went somewhere. That’s something.

 

[ReinyDays]

That’s not entirely true. We know it went somewhere. That’s something.

Baleen whales stripping the oceans of phytoplankton ... as soon as their numbers rebounded from near extinction our global temperatures started sky rocketing ... coincidence or murderous intent? ..

 

[ding]

That’s not entirely true. We know it went somewhere. That’s something.

Baleen whales stripping the oceans of phytoplankton ... as soon as their numbers rebounded from near extinction our global temperatures started sky rocketing ... coincidence or murderous intent? ..

When was that exactly?

Is the answer C?

 

[ding]

Clearly, Baleen whales are responsible for global warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clearly, Baleen whales are responsible for global warming.

Considering the gas they emit.......for sure.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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]..

`

`

Agw is nothing but a conspiracy theory until they produce irrefutable scientific evidence that man is changing the global climate with his miniscule co2 output

Abu isn't smart enough to realize how little CO2 emission we produce yearly and how little of the IR window that CO2 absorbs in. Most of OLWR is outside of the CO2's main absorption band

 

[ReinyDays]

Abu isn't smart enough to realize how little CO2 emission we produce yearly and how little of the IR window that CO2 absorbs in. Most of OLWR is outside of the CO2's main absorption band

You might want to check that again ... focus on the 15 µm band ... that's very close to longwave maxima AND this band is transparent to water vapor ...

I agree the effect is WAY overstated by the Hystericals ... but we still have a very small cause which will give us a very small effect ... 2ºC in 100 years ... that's tiny ...

 

[ding]

I agree the effect is WAY overstated by the Hystericals ... but we still have a very small cause which will give us a very small effect ... 2ºC in 100 years ... that's tiny ...

In a vacuum... all other things being equal... and so on... etc...

...so to speak

 

[ReinyDays]

I agree the effect is WAY overstated by the Hystericals ... but we still have a very small cause which will give us a very small effect ... 2ºC in 100 years ... that's tiny ...

In a vacuum... all other things being equal... and so on... etc...

...so to speak

Oh hell no ... this is instruments in orbit ... empirical data ... very pronounced emission line at 15 µm in situ ... test all the gases for emission lines and only CO2 reacts ...

There's very little about the behavior of a fluid medium that can be modeled in a vacuum ... just saying ...

 

[ding]

I agree the effect is WAY overstated by the Hystericals ... but we still have a very small cause which will give us a very small effect ... 2ºC in 100 years ... that's tiny ...

In a vacuum... all other things being equal... and so on... etc...

...so to speak

Oh hell no ... this is instruments in orbit ... empirical data ... very pronounced emission line at 15 µm in situ ... test all the gases for emission lines and only CO2 reacts ...

There's very little about the behavior of a fluid medium that can be modeled in a vacuum ... just saying ...

A proverbial vacuum, not a vacuum vacuum.

 

[abu afak]

Agw is nothing but a conspiracy theory until they produce irrefutable scientific evidence that man is changing the global climate with his miniscule co2 output

They have presented irrefutable science.
That, alas, doesn't stop you from saying they haven't/iving in denial.
MAGA!

`

 

[ding]

Agw is nothing but a conspiracy theory until they produce irrefutable scientific evidence that man is changing the global climate with his miniscule co2 output

They have presented irrefutable science.
That, alas, doesn't stop you from saying they haven't/iving in denial.
MAGA!

`

You are living in an ice age, dummy.

 

[Oddball]

Agw is nothing but a conspiracy theory until they produce irrefutable scientific evidence that man is changing the global climate with his miniscule co2 output

They have presented irrefutable science.
That, alas, doesn't stop you from saying they haven't/iving in denial.
MAGA!

`

Where's the physically repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable "irrefutable science", Corky?

Put up or shut up,

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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]..

`

`