CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

I can refer you to them. Address your question to the AAAS. There are thousands. I referred to a couple several posts ago.

You've been repeating your claim, repeatedly, but I have to go to the AAAS for your evidence? DURR
 
You've been repeating your claim, repeatedly, but I have to go to the AAAS for your evidence? DURR
Of course. You guys ask for something that would take scads of space to post, you should just fking read it yourself. That’s a source.
 
Of course. You guys ask for something that would take scads of space to post, you should just fking read it yourself. That’s a source.

How many thousands of things are included in this world-wide "consensus"?
Or is it tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Do they take a vote on each thing? Is it unanimous? Or 50% plus 1?
 
The rats are starting to abandon ship:


CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist
Forget ‘settled’ science or ‘consensus’ – that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda. One of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Current understanding of the entire picture is limited, and it seems the opportunity has been taken to fill this gap by blaming carbon dioxide almost entirely for the recent gentle warming. A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.
The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.
In Kininmonth’s view, the recent warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”. CO2 “must be recognised” as a very minor contributor to the observed warming, and one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations, he notes. He explains that the main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water, both in the oceans and the atmosphere after evaporation.
As CO₂ concentration increases from 0 to 600 parts per million (green bars), the total strength of the greenhouse effect, measured as the energy the greenhouse gases radiate to the Earth’s surface, barely changes (orange line). Source: Kininmonth 2022
.



Science is never settled and scientific consensus is a ridiculous lie.




.
 
Of course he made money on global warming. Dah . How stupid would it be for him not to.
Typical Leftist excuse maker. Sure it's fine for Al Jazeera Gore to push a lie and make hundred of millions of dollars doing it. It's the Democrat way!
 
Not in science however.

Why don’t you post the consensus study

”the consensus study” Are you saying stupidly that science did a study on the word “ consensus ?”.
Any other words you think science should study ?
How about “and”, “the” and don’t forget the phrase ,” shit head deniers”. We should do a clinical study on them along with “the flat earth society.“
 
I have no idea what your point is. Its pretty trivial since you can’t refute anything I’ve said, you’re down to acting stupid.
”the consensus study” Are you saying stupidly that science did a study on the word “ consensus ?”.
Any other words you think science should study ?
Reproduced studies
 
Not in science however.

Why don’t you post the consensus study
Oh, and science never uses the English language here in the USA ? So, they are not allowed to use the word “consensus” ?
what a dufus post you just made.
 
So let’s see. You don’t know the meaning of the word consensus, but you insist science can’t use the word. you are one strange mfr.
Hahaha haha no such thing in science,

Why do you think there is such a thing?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top