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

[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.

`

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.

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

That unbiased search looks pretty damn consistent/Convincing/Lock-Step to any fair observer.

`
Have a nice page.
`

 

[Oddball]

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?

Completely forward....You have no traditionally accepted scientific evidence, based upon centuries-old acid tests.

None.

 

[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.

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.

You make me laugh dude. You admit CO2 is a GHG and then say no one knows if it has a GHG effect. As I have told YOU on numerous occasions, CO2 increases when the Earth is warmed and increasing CO2 will warm the Earth. These are facts, dude. Facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

...largely due to water vapor...

 

[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.

]size=6]

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

Those look pretty damn consistent/Convincing to any fair observer.

`

Correlation ≠ causation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGW is falsifiable.

How?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

You make me laugh dude. You admit CO2 is a GHG and then say no one knows if it has a GHG effect. As I have told YOU on numerous occasions, CO2 increases when the Earth is warmed and increasing CO2 will warm the Earth. These are facts, dude. Facts.

What's the relationship between CO2 and temperature?

 

[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]..

`

`

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.

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

That unbiased search looks pretty damn consistent/Convincing to any fair observer.

`
Have a nice page.
`

You posted charts showing CO2 LAGGING temperature on both increase and decrease for hundreds of thousands of years!

 

[Crick]

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.

So, every time Bernoulli's principle is brought up in a science class, you'll have to run a test to demonstrate its validity? I've got a better idea. Do some surveys of scientists and their writings and find out if they accept Bernoulli's principle.

 

[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?

Completely forward....You have no traditionally accepted scientific evidence, based upon centuries-old acid tests.

None.

What do you mean by "completely forward"? The OBSERVED absorption spectrum of CO2 is certainly evidence. THE OBSERVATION that CO2 will warm when exposed to IR radiation is certainly evidence.

 

[Crick]

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.

]size=6]

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

Those look pretty damn consistent/Convincing to any fair observer.

`

Correlation ≠ causation.

Then all those charts showing CO2 lagging temperature are just meaningless drivel?

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Everyone in the world knows your GOP propaganda is insane except for you brainwashed functional morons. Not saying you're stupid, it's a wonderful propaganda machine. Change the channel. No elections stolen, rich totally bloated. Thank God for Joe Biden, Jack Kennedy without the Kennedy stuff. The only two Catholics. God bless them. You are totally 100% brainwashed with hate and idiocy.

 

[westwall]

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?

The scientific method DEMANDS that any claim you make can be tested, and be FALSIFIABLE. If it's not falsifiable, by DEFINITION, it is pseudo science. Do you understand what falsifiable means?

In your own words tell us what it means.

 

[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.

You make me laugh dude. You admit CO2 is a GHG and then say no one knows if it has a GHG effect. As I have told YOU on numerous occasions, CO2 increases when the Earth is warmed and increasing CO2 will warm the Earth. These are facts, dude. Facts.

No one has been able to demonstrate in a lab how much CO2 is needed to generate an increase in temperature. Instead, you asshats invent cute little terms like "forcings", as if these magical words can contravene the Laws of Physics.

 

[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.

Everyone in the world knows your GOP propaganda is insane except for you brainwashed functional morons. Not saying you're stupid, it's a wonderful propaganda machine. Change the channel. No elections stolen, rich totally bloated. Thank God for Joe Biden, Jack Kennedy without the Kennedy stuff. The only two Catholics. God bless them. You are totally 100% brainwashed with hate and idiocy.

And every legitimate scientist knows that the cult of AGW is made up of morons, frauds, and thieves.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Everyone in the world knows your GOP propaganda is insane except for you brainwashed functional morons. Not saying you're stupid, it's a wonderful propaganda machine. Change the channel. No elections stolen, rich totally bloated. Thank God for Joe Biden, Jack Kennedy without the Kennedy stuff. The only two Catholics. God bless them. You are totally 100% brainwashed with hate and idiocy.

And every legitimate scientist knows that the cult of AGW is made up of morons, frauds, and thieves.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it at least 100% accurate

 

[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.

Everyone in the world knows your GOP propaganda is insane except for you brainwashed functional morons. Not saying you're stupid, it's a wonderful propaganda machine. Change the channel. No elections stolen, rich totally bloated. Thank God for Joe Biden, Jack Kennedy without the Kennedy stuff. The only two Catholics. God bless them. You are totally 100% brainwashed with hate and idiocy.

And every legitimate scientist knows that the cult of AGW is made up of morons, frauds, and thieves.

Well.... there is a brainless cult in there somewhere, but I think its more likely to be the folks who reject what those legitimate scientists have ALL concluded.

 

[abu afak]

Well.... there is a brainless cult in there somewhere, but I think its more likely to be the folks who reject what those legitimate scientists have ALL concluded.

Yes , and Wetwall claims to somehow be in science.
Sweeping the lab and feeding the rats no doubt.

He also claims to be a progressive but hasn't managed a single post in that direction in 10 years nd 76,000 posts.
He Lies about everything.

`

 

[westwall]

Yes , and Wetwall claims to somehow be in science.
Sweeping the lab and feeding the rats no doubt.

He also claims to be a progressive but hasn't managed a single post in that direction in 10 years nd 76,000 posts.
He Lies about everything.

`

No, dipshit, I claimed to be LIBERAL! Progressives are evil scumbags.

 

[abu afak]

No, dipshit, I claimed to be LIBERAL! Progressives are evil scumbags.

OK LIAR.
Show us your 'Liberal' posts.
You post and like/dislike 100% GOP.
LIAR
LIAR
LIAR
BIGGGEST LIE I'VE EVE SEEN HERE.


`