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

[abu afak]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Like I said:
No, and all you have is ONE Oil Paid study (Soon et al) to evidence it while the VAST MAJORITY of the Science community and 100% of Intl Science orgs and say the warming is AGW.

`

 

[ding]

Like I said:
No, and all you have is ONE Oil Paid study (Soon et al) to evidence it while the VAST MAJORITY of the Science community and 100% of Intl Science orgs and say the warming is AGW.

`

And yet our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2 than in the past.

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

 

[ding]

It seems there isn't a consensus after all.

 

[abu afak]

It seems there isn't a consensus after all.

Yes!
Wiki

Opposing​

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]

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...

`

 

[ding]

Yes!
Wiki

Opposing​

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]

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...

`

These studies disagree.

Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020). Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[abu afak]

These studies disagree.

Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020). Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Out of 40,000
LOL
bye.

`

 

[ding]

Out of 40,000
LOL
bye.

`

Don't forget this.

 

[Decus]

You still believe AGW is a "China Hoax" you MAGAt?
What about all those 'wrong predictions' from Western scientists in the 80s before China was a dynamo?

`

Don't play stupid (at least I hope you are just pretending). Go back to my earlier posts, read the linked articles and try again.

.

 

[abu afak]

Don't play stupid (at least I hope you are just pretending). Go back to my earlier posts, read the linked articles and try again.

.

I read your last posts and responded to all of them at the time they were made.
You seem to be obsessed with CHINA causing lots of the GHGs/Warming..
and I agree!
Now you need to tell most of the posters here that Burning Fossil Fuels esp Coal is a bad thing because THEY don't believe it.
`

 

[Decus]

I read your last posts and responded to all of them at the time they were made.
You seem to be obsessed with CHINA causing lots of the GHGs/Warming..
and I agree!
Now you need to tell most of the posters here that Burning Fossil Fuels esp Coal is a bad thing because THEY don't believe it.
`

If the solution to the world's problems is to kill fossil fuels than do it but you have to deliver the results.

If fossil fuels are such a bad thing and China is the world's biggest polluter, what is going to be done about it? Taxation, carbon credits and "clean energy" will have no impact on improving CO2 levels if that is truly your interest.

Environmentalists can pontificate all they want about solutions like "net zero" but unless they force countries like China to comply, all they are doing is greenwashing.

"China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed."

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

www.bbc.com

Xi has also shown that China's promises to improve air quality are worthless:

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

"China’s ambitious low-carbon goals will not be realised easily and should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the “normal life” of ordinary people, its president, Xi Jinping, has said, signalling a more cautious approach to the climate emergency as the economy slows."

Low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with ‘normal life’, says Xi Jinping

President signals more cautious approach to climate crisis and says China must ‘overcome notion of rapid success’

www.theguardian.com

 

[abu afak]

If the solution to the world's problems is to kill fossil fuels than do it but you have to deliver the results.

If fossil fuels are such a bad thing and China is the world's biggest polluter, what is going to be done about it? Taxation, carbon credits and "clean energy" will have no impact on improving CO2 levels if that is truly your interest.

Environmentalists can pontificate all they want about solutions like "net zero" but unless they force countries like China to comply, all they are doing is greenwashing.

"China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed."

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

www.bbc.com

Xi has also shown that China's promises to improve air quality are worthless:

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

"China’s ambitious low-carbon goals will not be realised easily and should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the “normal life” of ordinary people, its president, Xi Jinping, has said, signalling a more cautious approach to the climate emergency as the economy slows."

Low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with ‘normal life’, says Xi Jinping

President signals more cautious approach to climate crisis and says China must ‘overcome notion of rapid success’

www.theguardian.com

I agree!!
But you're preaching to the Choir.
(because you are a RW turd who thinks this is a political issue)
I hate ***** china for several reasons. (Currency and trade manipulation, Ethnic Cleansing, Lack of Free Speech, Hong Kong, etc)

But FIRST we have to agree what the problem is and you are 'answering'/attacking the wrong person because of your obsession with China.
First you have to convince all the Deniers here (all RWers) that burning coal, etc, is even bad and has any effect.
Many, MAYBE MOST, do Not believe in AGW.
Instead you attack me on China.
You have a Political problem.
I talk climate in this section.
Get a grip.
`


`

 

[ding]

I agree!!
But your preaching to the Choir.
(because you are a RW turd who thinks this is a political issue)
I hate ***** china for several reasons. (Currency and trade manipulation, Ethnic Cleansing, Lack of Free Speech, Hong Kong, etc)

But FIRST we have to agree what the problem is and you are 'answering'/attacking the wrong person because of your obsession with China.
First you have to convince all the Deniers here (all RWers) that burning coal, etc is even bad and has any effect.
Many, MAYBE MOST, do Not believe in AGW.
Instead you attack me on China.
You have a Political problem.
I talk climate in this section.
Get a grip.
`


`

His point was that the US's emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years.

 

[abu afak]

His point was that the US's emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years.

I fully understand and agreed.
And told him the real problem:
AGW Deniers like YOU, be it here OR overseas.
Clown.

 

[ding]

I fully understand and agreed.
And told him the real problem:
AGW Deniers like YOU, be it here OR overseas.
Clown.

How are "we" the problem for the rest of the world increasing their emissions by 1 billion tons per year every year?

 

[abu afak]

How are "we" the problem for the rest of the world increasing their emissions by 1 billion tons per year every year?

I SAID ""AGW Deniers like YOU, be it here OR overseas.""
and I did NOT say "we are the problem."

So you are a fabricating/Lying MFer.
And a mentally ill juvenile baiter.

`

 

[ding]

I SAID ""AGW Deniers like YOU, be it here OR overseas.""
and I did NOT say "we are the problem."

So you are a fabricating/Lying MFer.
And a mentally ill juvenile baiter.

`

How exactly do they control what gets done?

 

[Decus]

I agree!!
But you're preaching to the Choir.
(because you are a RW turd who thinks this is a political issue)
I hate ***** china for several reasons. (Currency and trade manipulation, Ethnic Cleansing, Lack of Free Speech, Hong Kong, etc)

But FIRST we have to agree what the problem is and you are 'answering'/attacking the wrong person because of your obsession with China.
First you have to convince all the Deniers here (all RWers) that burning coal, etc, is even bad and has any effect.
Many, MAYBE MOST, do Not believe in AGW.
Instead you attack me on China.
You have a Political problem.
I talk climate in this section.
Get a grip.
`


`

You are funny. I didn't even start a conversation with you, rather you wanted to step in to my comment to another poster to say that "solutions" had nothing to do with consensus.

Your first swing and a miss.

You call me a magat ("Make America Great Again Terrorist") and then you claim I attacked you - just too fcking funny - attacked??? more like responded in kind.

Your second swing and a miss.

And now you claim that getting all countries on board with a solution to "greenhouse gases" (ie: net-zero) isn't political???? Tell me how a worldwide agreement will be made if politicians don't agree to abide by something like net-zero???

Sit down slugger - you're not ready to play.

.

 

[abu afak]

How exactly do they control what gets done?

How do you control your frequent urination?
The usual gratuitous 'reply.'

 

[ding]

How do you control your frequent urination?
The usual gratuitous 'reply.'

How do climate deniers prevent the world from reducing emissions? That's your claim, right?

 

[abu afak]

You are funny. I didn't even start a conversation with you, rather you wanted to step in to my comment to another poster to say that "solutions" had nothing to do with consensus.

Your first swing and a miss.

You call me a magat ("Make America Great Again Terrorist") and then you claim I attacked you - just too fcking funny - attacked??? more like responded in kind.

Your second swing and a miss.

And now you claim that getting all countries on board with a solution to "greenhouse gases" (ie: net-zero) isn't political???? Tell me how a worldwide agreement will be made if politicians don't agree to abide by something like net-zero???

Sit down slugger - you're not ready to play.

.

Again:
I'll stick with the gist of my last.

You're preaching to the Choir.
I hate ***** china for several reasons. (Currency and trade manipulation, Ethnic Cleansing, Lack of Free Speech, Hong Kong, etc)

But FIRST we have to agree what the problem is and you are 'answering'/attacking the wrong person because of your obsession with China.
First you have to convince all the Deniers here (all RWers/Ding, Sunset, etc) ("Or OVERSEAS" in my last) that burning coal, etc, is even bad and has any effect.
Many, MAYBE MOST, do Not believe in AGW.
Instead you attack me on China.
I talk climate in this section.
`