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

[Muhammed]

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]..

`

`

First of all, consensus has nothing to do with science.

Furthermore, there is no consensus. In fact, it's about the most controversial hypothesis out there.

You've simply been brainwashed into believing there is a consensus via repeated messaging. That's why they have to repeat the consensus lie over and over and over and over again in the first place. It's a brainwashing technique that obviously works very well on idiots like you.

 

[Oddball]

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]..

`

`

 

[westwall]

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!

`

No, they haven't. They have presented nothing more than computer derived fiction.

 

[abu afak]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

 

[westwall]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you make.

`

`

Appeals to authority are logic fails, idiot. Come up with reproducible science like the scientific method requires

 

[westwall]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[abu afak]

Appeals to authority are logic fails, idiot. Come up with reproducible science like the scientific method requires

You are so ***** STUPID it's unbelievable.
Uses of legitimate authority are not fallacious.
IOW, if I cited Einstein on Relativity that would be the ultimate in Good citation not 'fallacious.'

ie​

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

​

""appeal to authority​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

​

It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. ​

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence...""​

Wetballs is THEE Stupidest Idiot on this mb, and the moron claims to be in science. (As a subject in a dementia study maybe)

`

`

 

[Oddball]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

That's not how it works.

You post the repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence, or you don't.

Wiki doesn't count.

 

[Oddball]

Appeals to authority are logic fails, idiot. Come up with reproducible science like the scientific method requires

You are so ***** STUPID it's unbelievable.
Uses of legitimate authority are not fallacious.
IOW, if I cited Einstein on Relativity that would be the ultimate in Good citation mot 'fallacious.'

ie

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.


Wetballs is THEE Stupidest Idiot on this mb, and the moron claims to be in science. (As a subject in a dementia study maybe)

`

`

"Consensus" is political, not scientific.

Nobody needs "consensus" to prove Bernoulli's principle....It can be bench tested all day every day.

Stupid idiot.

 

[abu afak]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

That's not how it works.

You post the repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence, or you don't.

Wiki doesn't count.






View attachment 477140

That is "how it works"
and why Wiki has THREE FOOTNOTES/citations for just that One sentence.

You have one 12 IQ meme and not even an unsourced counter claim, you idiot juvenile Troll.

`

 

[Oddball]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

That's not how it works.

You post the repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence, or you don't.

Wiki doesn't count.






View attachment 477140

That is "how it works"
and why Wiki has THREE FOOTNOTES/citations for just that One sentence.

You you have one 12 IQ meme, you clown.

`

Footnotes to the fake Wiki are fake.

I don't accept crap from Wiki any more than you would from Fox.

Put up or shut up.

 

[westwall]

Appeals to authority are logic fails, idiot. Come up with reproducible science like the scientific method requires

You are so ***** STUPID it's unbelievable.
Uses of legitimate authority are not fallacious.
IOW, if I cited Einstein on Relativity that would be the ultimate in Good citation not 'fallacious.'

ie​

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

​

""appeal to authority​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

​

It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. ​

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence...""​

Wetballs is THEE Stupidest Idiot on this mb, and the moron claims to be in science. (As a subject in a dementia study maybe)

`

`

Anytime an "authority" has a monetary interest in what they are pushing, THEY ARE NO LONGER LEGITIMATE, you ignorant clod!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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]..

`

`

Concensus =/= Science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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]..

`

`

`

One must remember that religion drives a persons political views. GW/Climate Change is a religion(belief system). It is more rare than hens teeth that a person can change his/her entrenched religion no matter what or how many facts to the contrary are presented to the individual in question. It is just the 'human condition'.

The Party believes in Climate Change, it's their Communal waifer.

Do you accept Global Climate Warming Change as your Savior?

 

[Crick]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

Both are true and scientists knew this fact a hundred years ago.

 

[westwall]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

Both are true and scientists knew this fact a hundred years ago.

No, they don't. Actual, real, empirical data shows CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes AFTER warming. Hundreds of years after the warming event began.

 

[Oddball]

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]..

`

`

View attachment 477137

It would be easy to refute if you could just cite ONE Int'l organization who disagreed.

But you can't.

What an asinine post.
The only type you (and Wetwall) make.

`

`

That's not how it works.

You post the repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence, or you don't.

Wiki doesn't count.






View attachment 477140

That is "how it works"
and why Wiki has THREE FOOTNOTES/citations for just that One sentence.

You have one 12 IQ meme and not even an unsourced counter claim, you idiot juvenile Troll.

`

1) None of it can be bench tested, in the context of an infinitely flexible ecosystem.

2) You warmer clods cannot possibly account for all variables, therefore your hokum isn't falsifiable.

3) Nobody -and I mean NOBODY- has ever come up with a formula of X amount of CO2 = Y amount of warming that has ever been predictive.....Therefore, unquantifiable.

So your Wiki citation is even more bogus than we customarily expect from that fan fiction site, sub-cretin.

 

[Crick]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

Both are true and scientists knew this fact a hundred years ago.

No, they don't. Actual, real, empirical data shows CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes AFTER warming. Hundreds of years after the warming event began.

Yes, they do.

From Wikipedia
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[12] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapours. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapour, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[13] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[14] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[15][16]

Van 't Hoff equation - Wikipedia for the temperature dependence of gas solubility and
Henry's law - Wikipedia for gas solubility dependence on partial pressure (let me know if you need an explanation of partial pressure)

This is all known and undisputed science. Suggesting it is not marks you as an ignorant, fringe whack-job, so to speak.

 

[westwall]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

Both are true and scientists knew this fact a hundred years ago.

No, they don't. Actual, real, empirical data shows CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes AFTER warming. Hundreds of years after the warming event began.

Yes, they do.

From Wikipedia
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[12] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapours. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapour, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[13] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[14] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[15][16]

Van 't Hoff equation - Wikipedia for the temperature dependence of gas solubility and
Henry's law - Wikipedia for gas solubility dependence on partial pressure (let me know if you need an explanation of partial pressure)

This is all known and undisputed science. Suggesting it is not marks you as an ignorant, fringe whack-job, so to speak.

No, they don't. All they were able to ascertain was that yes, CO2 is a GHG. That's all. And over the years the effectiveness of it as a GHG has been LOWERED.

 

[Crick]

1) None of it can be bench tested, in the context of an infinitely flexible ecosystem.

2) You warmer clods cannot possibly account for all variables, therefore your hokum isn't falsifiable.

3) Nobody -and I mean NOBODY- has ever come up with a formula of X amount of CO2 = Y amount of warming that has ever been predictive.....Therefore, unquantifiable.

So your Wiki citation is even more bogus than we customarily expect from that fan fiction site, sub-cretin.

Working backwards...
3) No one has ever claimed that there SHOULD be a formula providing some proportionality constant between CO2 levels and temperature increase. The Earth and its climate is far too complex and dynamic for such a handy thing. What HAS been shown is that, all other factors remaining steady, increasing GHGs increase temperature.
2) The same could be said of any theory involving a process in the natural world. The variables that NEED to be dealt with can be. AGW is falsifiable. That no one has been able to do so is simply ongoing evidence that the theory is valid.
3) The absorption spectrum of CO2 can be tested on the bench. That the observed absorption warms the subject gas can be tested on the bench. What else would you like to test?