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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty much so. ABSOLUTELY. That you have to even ask makes you a science illiterate. You don’t have a fking clue what science is do you ? The fallible fake woo woo is your shit, not the science practiced at NASA, Harvard, AAAS etc. And 25k others. If you could find one who agreed with your shit, you’d post it. You can’t.

Did you ever find what NASA, Harvard, AAAS etc. all agree on?
Specifically? Or are you still a pussy?

 

[jc456]

Nope, don’t need to. There are scads of links.

links with no data on what the consensus actually is about.

 

[jc456]

Tucker is in your dreams.

you see my dreams do you?

 

[jc456]

Pretty much so. ABSOLUTELY. That you have to even ask makes you a science illiterate. You don’t have a fking clue what science is do you ? The fallible fake woo woo is your shit, not the science practiced at NASA, Harvard, AAAS etc. And 25k others. If you could find one who agreed with your shit, you’d post it. You can’t.

what do they agree on?

 

[Dagosa]

what do they agree on?

Who knows, it’s your shit. Your shit has no evidence whatsoever ever.

 

[Dagosa]

you see my dreams do you?

I hear you talking in your dreams.

 

[Dagosa]

links with no data on what the consensus actually is about.

Wrong. There are scads of evidence. 25 k sites at least

 

[Dagosa]

You mean all the geologists who said continents don't move were infallible?

Idiot. Name your institution that said any of your made up shit.

 

[Dagosa]

Did you ever find what NASA, Harvard, AAAS etc. all agree on?
Specifically? Or are you still a pussy?

Yes I did. You can too.

 

[jc456]

I hear you talking in your dreams.

it's obvious you are fking cuckooo

 

[Redfish]

The rats are starting to abandon ship:

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/​

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​

true, and without CO2 there would be no life on earth of any kind.

 

[jc456]

Wrong. There are scads of evidence. 25 k sites at least

cool, then post what it is they agree on?

 

[Dagosa]

You mean all the geologists who said continents don't move were infallible?

Not giologist alone but institutions. You’re hilarious, you have none of them.

 

[Dagosa]

true, and without CO2 there would be no life on earth of any kind.

And you have a point ?

 

[Dagosa]

it's obvious you are fking cuckooo

It’s obvious you’re a bullshitter .

 

[Dagosa]

You mean all the geologists who said continents don't move were infallible?

Name where they said this made up shit.

 

[Dagosa]

cool, then post what it is they agree on?

None of your made up shit is among it

 

[Dagosa]

Did you ever find what NASA, Harvard, AAAS etc. all agree on?
Specifically? Or are you still a pussy?

Yes I did. None of it is your made up shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Name where they said this made up shit.

How is it made up? When do you believe the theory of continental drift became universally accepted?

Continental drift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continental drift is the hypothesis that the Earth's continents have moved over geologic time relative to each other, thus appearing to have "drifted" across the ocean bed.[1] The idea of continental drift has been subsumed into the science of plate tectonics, which studies the movement of the continents as they ride on plates of the Earth's lithosphere.[2]​

​

The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. A pioneer of the modern view of mobilism was the Austrian geologist Otto Ampferer.[3][4] The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but the hypothesis was rejected by many for lack of any motive mechanism.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .​

​

Rejection of Wegener's theory, 1910s–1950s[edit]​

Although now accepted, the theory of continental drift was rejected for many years, with evidence in its favor considered insufficient. One problem was that a plausible driving force was missing.[1] A second problem was that Wegener's estimate of the speed of continental motion, 250 cm/year, was implausibly high.[34] (The currently accepted rate for the separation of the Americas from Europe and Africa is about 2.5 cm/year).[35] Furthermore, Wegener was treated less seriously because he was not a geologist. Even today, the details of the forces propelling the plates are poorly understood.[1]​

​

The English geologist Arthur Holmes championed the theory of continental drift at a time when it was deeply unfashionable. He proposed in 1931 that the Earth's mantle contained convection cells which dissipated heat produced by radioactive decay and moved the crust at the surface.[36] His Principles of Physical Geology, ending with a chapter on continental drift, was published in 1944.[37]​

Geological maps of the time showed huge land bridges spanning the Atlantic and Indian oceans to account for the similarities of fauna and flora and the divisions of the Asian continent in the Permian period, but failing to account for glaciation in India, Australia and South Africa.[38]​

​

 

[Dagosa]

How is it made up? When do you believe the theory of continental drift became universally accepted?

Continental drift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continental drift is the hypothesis that the Earth's continents have moved over geologic time relative to each other, thus appearing to have "drifted" across the ocean bed.[1] The idea of continental drift has been subsumed into the science of plate tectonics, which studies the movement of the continents as they ride on plates of the Earth's lithosphere.[2]​

​

The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. A pioneer of the modern view of mobilism was the Austrian geologist Otto Ampferer.[3][4] The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but the hypothesis was rejected by many for lack of any motive mechanism.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .​

​

Rejection of Wegener's theory, 1910s–1950s[edit]​

Although now accepted, the theory of continental drift was rejected for many years, with evidence in its favor considered insufficient. One problem was that a plausible driving force was missing.[1] A second problem was that Wegener's estimate of the speed of continental motion, 250 cm/year, was implausibly high.[34] (The currently accepted rate for the separation of the Americas from Europe and Africa is about 2.5 cm/year).[35] Furthermore, Wegener was treated less seriously because he was not a geologist. Even today, the details of the forces propelling the plates are poorly understood.[1]​

​

The English geologist Arthur Holmes championed the theory of continental drift at a time when it was deeply unfashionable. He proposed in 1931 that the Earth's mantle contained convection cells which dissipated heat produced by radioactive decay and moved the crust at the surface.[36] His Principles of Physical Geology, ending with a chapter on continental drift, was published in 1944.[37]​

Geological maps of the time showed huge land bridges spanning the Atlantic and Indian oceans to account for the similarities of fauna and flora and the divisions of the Asian continent in the Permian period, but failing to account for glaciation in India, Australia and South Africa.[38]​

​

your quote dumbo.
“You mean all the geologists who said continents don't move were infallible?”
YOU claim a few geologists denied it stooopid.
A few geologist is not an institution nit wit dufus igniramous. Show your evidence of denial. Prove that it’s institutional agreed upon, consensus science that said it.
You can’t bozo, can you ?