Proof of AGW fraud

[SSDD]

By YOUR consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.

Oh, you mean "Scientific Consensus" as opposed to simple consensus? Is that why you can't bring yourself to say it? Because THAT doesn't exist,.. even though you can't help appealing to it.. Relying upon it "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" to feebly attempt arguing against it? I gather one must simply suppose those are Scientific "Peer-Reviewed Papers"? Sure, sure, pull the other one! Shirley you'll fool someone other than your shrinking parade of determined fools..

The 97% figure was from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS worldwide, bonehead. Physicists? Who gives a shit? They're all nuttier than I am!

Still waiting to see some of this observed, measured evidence upon which the "scientific consensus" is based...pardon me if I don't hold my breath till it shows up...so far all you have produced is opinion pieces...surely opinion isn't what the "scientific consensus" is based on according to you.

 

[SSDD]

"Scientific Consensus"

Confirmation Bias....

Your films make it clear that it is CONFIRMATION BIAS as they do not even mention the opposing points of view by real CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Those scientists who are questioning the hypothesis are ignored by the IPCC group circle jerk.

They are real short on empirical evidence as well.

 

[SSDD]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.

We already know you don't believe basic science. But in doing so you are in a blatant self contradiction.

Sunlight passing through hotter corona.

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

From Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object
to a higher temperature object.

Since you think the sun is not a spontaneous source of energy and involves work then you have no argument against back-radiation which is allowed because the greenhouse gases involve energy of work from the sun.

Furthermore you have not been able to name any process that you think is spontaneous. So the expression that, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, really has no practical significance in your world. Yet you continually apply this to everything as an argument against radiation flow from a colder to a warmer object.

In short you are in a serious self-contradiction to your own believes in your own fake physics.


.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.

We already know you don't believe basic science. But in doing so you are in a blatant self contradiction.

Sunlight passing through hotter corona.

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

From Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object
to a higher temperature object.

Since you think the sun is not a spontaneous source of energy and involves work then you have no argument against back-radiation which is allowed because the greenhouse gases involve energy of work from the sun.

Furthermore you have not been able to name any process that you think is spontaneous. So the expression that, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, really has no practical significance in your world. Yet you continually apply this to everything as an argument against radiation flow from a colder to a warmer object.

In short you are in a serious self-contradiction to your own believes in your own fake physics.


.

You just have to foist your tedium on everyone don't you? Revisit any previous incarnation of this topic if you must relive your defeat over and over...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.

We already know you don't believe basic science. But in doing so you are in a blatant self contradiction.

Sunlight passing through hotter corona.

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

From Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object
to a higher temperature object.

Since you think the sun is not a spontaneous source of energy and involves work then you have no argument against back-radiation which is allowed because the greenhouse gases involve energy of work from the sun.

Furthermore you have not been able to name any process that you think is spontaneous. So the expression that, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, really has no practical significance in your world. Yet you continually apply this to everything as an argument against radiation flow from a colder to a warmer object.

In short you are in a serious self-contradiction to your own believes in your own fake physics.


.

There are no spontaneous emissions in the solar system, just ask him.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.

We already know you don't believe basic science. But in doing so you are in a blatant self contradiction.

Sunlight passing through hotter corona.

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

From Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object
to a higher temperature object.

Since you think the sun is not a spontaneous source of energy and involves work then you have no argument against back-radiation which is allowed because the greenhouse gases involve energy of work from the sun.

Furthermore you have not been able to name any process that you think is spontaneous. So the expression that, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, really has no practical significance in your world. Yet you continually apply this to everything as an argument against radiation flow from a colder to a warmer object.

In short you are in a serious self-contradiction to your own believes in your own fake physics.


.

You just have to foist your tedium on everyone don't you? Revisit any previous incarnation of this topic if you must relive your defeat over and over...

Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground.

Over and over you have been promoting the fake science of (1) debasing the scientific definition of spontaneous processes and (2) the fake science of one way emission of your “smart photons”. And all that time you didn't realize you were contradicting yourself.

There is no need to prove your fake science is wrong. You did it yourself through self-contradiction.

.

 

[SSDD]

Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground.

.

Truth in 3 words...sorry...

 

[otto105]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the known temperature rise, were less than 0.0013 deg C ie: mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

 

[otto105]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years. Idiot.

 

[otto105]

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years. Idiot.

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Moron

 

[Billy_Bob]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years. Idiot.

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Moron

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought | New Scientist

"
“We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.

The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.

As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found."



You are totally ignorant of the science.. I hope your laughing at yourself as the 200 year lag in CO2 is a well seated premise of atmospheric physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground.

.

Truth in 3 words...sorry...

Yes your physics simply doesn't work. This is another example, it's not self contradiction but it is an absurd result of your fake physics.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That of course is ridiculous. In fact it is argumentum ad ridiculum. So obviously there is a misinterpretation of the word “energy” in that some forms of energy do not apply. How do you think the wording should be changed to dismiss that ridiculous example?

 

[jc456]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

 

[jc456]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

What is it you think man is doing exactly to CO2, and what is your proposal?

 

[otto105]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years. Idiot.

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Moron

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought | New Scientist

"
“We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.

The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.

As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found."



You are totally ignorant of the science.. I hope your laughing at yourself as the 200 year lag in CO2 is a well seated premise of atmospheric physics.

Ok, laugher curve. What’s causing the oceans to warm and release CO2?


Other oceans two hundred years ago....

 

[Grumblenuts]

In such tight circles each denialist warms and out gasses instead of thinking or responding responsibly. As the masturbation continues the others warm further, exacerbating the already increased warming which, in turn, has been witnessed to increase their out gassing. This cyclic jerking invariably ends in an embarrassing spontaneous explosion of fluid all over one another requiring immediate bathing and increased alcohol consumption to help them forget what always happens yet again..

 

[SSDD]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

I provided you with 7 peer reviewed, published papers which found that our contribution to CO2 is not measurable and has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2. I asked you to provide some actual science which said otherwise, and all you seem to be able to do is give example after example of your lack of critical thinking skills. Here is yet another published paper finding that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is simply not significant...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mospheric_CO2_to_Fossil_Fuel_Emissions_Part_2

As the author points out in the abstract, this paper is a validation of a previous paper. Maybe you don't know what that means, but it is the result of his attempt to prove his first paper wrong...he went looking for human fingerprints in the total atmospheric CO2 and simply couldn't find them.

"This short note is a validation of a previous work which found no correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. In this work, this result is tested for robustness with respect to sample period selection within a range of data availability. A resampling procedure similar to bootstrap is used. Resampling ensures that the failure to find a correlation is not an artifact of the sample period chosen. The results validate the robustness of the previous finding and imply that here is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale net of long term trends. This result is robust. It holds for all possible combination of years in the study period 1958-2015 1 ."

So now you have 8 published papers which say that your opinion on our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is incorrect...Is your opinion based on any actual science? Can you provide any peer reviewed, published science which challenges these findings? If so, by all means lets see them. If not, then you are just another handwaving hysteric babbling on about what you believe with no actual evidence whatsoever to support your hysterics.