More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[Cellblock2429]

The position of mainstream science is based on thousands of studies by thousands of scientists from all over the planet and absolute mountains of evidence. The idea that all of them have been acting in perfect coordination for decades fabricating all of these data and studies without a single miss, conflict or confession is clearly insane.

/——-/ There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations

 

[themirrorthief]

Not what this scientist says that

doesnt it suck though that not one scientist living or dead has been able to PROVE that global warming is man made...damn and that little greta bitch keeps on lying about it

 

[ding]

The position of mainstream science is based on thousands of studies by thousands of scientists from all over the planet and absolute mountains of evidence. The idea that all of them have been acting in perfect coordination for decades fabricating all of these data and studies without a single miss, conflict or confession is clearly insane.

And they are mistaken because they are basing their beliefs on a flawed computer model using datasets selected to confirm their bias instead of honoring actual empirical climate data.

 

[Crick]

And they are mistaken because they are basing their beliefs on a flawed computer model

Are you claiming that 99+% of the world's climate scientists are basing their conclusions on nothing but a single computer model? A model apparently in use for the last several decades?

using datasets selected

Selected by whom?

to confirm their bias

So, you believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists had a preexisting bias to believe AGW?

instead of honoring actual empirical climate data.

"Honoring"? That's an odd word choice. So, you think 99+% of the world's climate scientists are ignoring empirical data? That would include temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations? You think they are making no use of those data?

Are you ever going to identify the point in time you've mentioned dozens of times when it was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2? And if not, WHY?

 

[jc456]

doesnt it suck though that not one scientist living or dead has been able to PROVE that global warming is man made...damn and that little greta bitch keeps on lying about it

can you believe they have a non scientist as a role model? hahahahahhahahahaha sixteen year old at that. And they got rid of the other non scientist Al Gore for her. stop yourselves.

 

[jc456]

Are you claiming that 99+% of the world's climate scientists

Fake news. You haven't, nor can you ever back up that fking mind altering claim.

 

[2aguy]

And except for this one...........

This redefinition of “climate change” to refer only to human-caused changes to the atmospheric composition has effectively eliminated natural climate change from the public discussion.

The result is that the common parlance refers to “climate change,” with no mention of natural climate variability. Any change that is observed over the past century is now implicitly assumed to be caused by human emissions to the atmosphere. This assumption leads to connecting every unusual weather or climate event to human-caused climate change from fossil fuel emissions. Having acknowledged that climate change is the “norm” throughout the Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history, Curry understands that this politicized attribution of all climate change to humans burning hydrocarbon fuels is nonsense.
------------
In his book The Essence of Chaos, Lorenz also demonstrated that small differences in initial measurements can produce dramatic differences in climate model outcomes. So, a butterfly flapping wings in China might affect tornados developing in Kansas, but sometimes when a butterfly flaps its wings in China, there is no effect on tornados in Kansas. The flapping of wings is a small difference in an initial measurement that can cause a huge effect on climate outcomes. But the fact that the wings flapping in China does not always cause a tornado in Kansas is because the equations ruling climate are nonlinear, so sometimes the butterfly causes a tornado, and sometimes it does not.

--------
In other words, weather is not predictable, nor can we determine with precision the precise amount of global warming, if any, that will result from a given increase in atmospheric CO2. This is why Curry abandoned the hope that climate can be modeled deterministically by a computer and, instead, insists that the uncertainties inherent in climate mean that, at best, our weather and climate predictions are uncertain, measurable only by probability theory.

A Leading Climate Scientist Expresses Doubt About the Veracity of the Global Warming Movement

A new book by a leading climate change scientist gives reason for hope that the light of truth is shedding a few rays into the dark, dystopian, ideologically driven pseudoscience known as global warming. With the 2023 publication of Climate Uncert...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[2aguy]

The position of mainstream science is based on thousands of studies by thousands of scientists from all over the planet and absolute mountains of evidence. The idea that all of them have been acting in perfect coordination for decades fabricating all of these data and studies without a single miss, conflict or confession is clearly insane.

Except when they are not.....and the lead scientists lie...in order to push their agenda.....

Remember Climategate...where we found out the scientists lied, and tried to punish people who didn't buy into their lies?

With the 2023 publication of Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response, geoscientist Judith A. Curry, Ph.D., acknowledges that, in 2007, she “joined the consensus” in supporting the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report as “authoritative.” What changed her perspective was Climategate, the 2009 hacking and unauthorized release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The email exchanges between climate scientists and IPCC authors confirmed her “concerns and suspicions” that “politics and personal agendas” had encroached on the IPCC assessment process.

A Leading Climate Scientist Expresses Doubt About the Veracity of the Global Warming Movement

A new book by a leading climate change scientist gives reason for hope that the light of truth is shedding a few rays into the dark, dystopian, ideologically driven pseudoscience known as global warming. With the 2023 publication of Climate Uncert...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[justoffal]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

No....

They show that the temperature and the CO2 concentrations are rising together.... They do not prove causation.

 

[jc456]

This one time in band camp!!!

 

[ding]

Are you claiming that 99+% of the world's climate scientists are basing their conclusions on nothing but a single computer model? A model apparently in use for the last several decades?

Selected by whom?

So, you believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists had a preexisting bias to believe AGW?

"Honoring"? That's an odd word choice. So, you think 99+% of the world's climate scientists are ignoring empirical data? That would include temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations? You think they are making no use of those data?

Are you ever going to identify the point in time you've mentioned dozens of times when it was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2? And if not, WHY?

I couldn’t have been clearer on what I said. As far as I am concerned this is your religion and you are a hypocrite. Your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine.

 

[Crick]

And they are mistaken because they are basing their beliefs on a flawed computer model using datasets selected to confirm their bias instead of honoring actual empirical climate data.

I couldn’t have been clearer on what I said. As far as I am concerned this is your religion and you are a hypocrite. Your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine.

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

 

[2aguy]

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

Yes....Climatgate
showed us how compromised these scientists are

 

[frigidweirdo]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

That doesn't mean they're right.
It doesn't mean they're astronomers... because, quite frankly, they're ignoring space and the impact it has on climate change.
Also, had they been around 120,000 years ago, they'd probably have blamed humans then too. Even though it was hotter back then than now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

What do climate scientists study?

You've just called someone "as stupid as a fucking rock", which... isn't very good for a debate. Whereas you could have disprove what he was saying. But you didn't.

Here's a chart that shows the temperatures as we think they were in the past.

320,000 years ago, temperatures were HOT. Man made global warming? Did man do this?

240,000 years ago, temperatures were HOT. Man made global warming? Did man do this?

130,000 years ago, temperatures were HOT. Man made global warming? Did man do this?

This is the first thing anyone needs to be thinking about. What should temperatures be right now? If humans didn't exist on planet Earth, how hot would it be?
It's a very difficult thing to answer. Because we don't know. We don't know why temperatures were hotter 320,000 years ago than 240,000 years ago. Or why they were hotter 130,000 years ago, than 240,000 years ago.

Or even whether this data isn't the accurate, or what it means.

But to call someone "stupid" because they question something which this chart itself says "hang on, man made global warming might not be the biggest issue here"

Do you now the Milankovich Cycles? Of course you do, otherwise that'd make you "as ignorant as a fucking rock", so tell us how the Milankovich Cycles work....

 

[Cellblock2429]

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

/——-/ “You're as stupid as a fucking rock”
Anyone who dares question your religion of global warming is as stupid as a fucking rock. Yeah, that’s gonna convert folks to your way of thinking.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

/----/ You should do this dance every morning to cool the Earth. Now hop to it.

 

[ding]

So you do believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single computer model that was apparently created decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists based their conclusions solely on a single dataset, selected by some unidentified person or organization, apparently decades ago.
You also believe that 99+% of the world's climate scientists completely ignore empirical data on global temperature, CO2 levels, the CO2 absorption spectrum, the spectrum of downwelling IR, precipitation data, wind data, storm characteristics, sea surface temperature, deep ocean temperatures, salinity, ice extents, polar ice mass balance, ice core data and a hundred other observations.

As to your religion and footprint comments, I don't give two shits what you think.

You're as stupid as a fucking rock and your grasp on reality is getting tenuous in the extreme.

I don't see them discussing the empirical paleoclimate data and what that data tells us.

 

[Crick]

I don't see them discussing the empirical paleoclimate data and what that data tells us.

Really?

Might I ask where you've been looking?

Climate Change in the Context of Paleoclimate

Studying the world before thermometers provides a better understanding of future climate concerns.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Created by Monica Bruckner, Montana State University. What is Paleoclimatology? Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, ...

serc.carleton.edu

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach." The...

phys.org

Paleoclimatology: Earth Systems Change Through Time – Historical Geology

opengeology.org

Understanding the Climate of Ancient Earth

The Earth has been around for a long time. Earth’s climate history is called its paleoclimate, where “paleo” means old or ancient. In this article, we explain how studying paleoclimate helps us understand how and why the Earth (and the life on it) evolved over time. Scientists can study the...

kids.frontiersin.org

Paleoclimate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Paleoclimatology: Understanding the Past to Predict the Future

Scientists use complicated climate models to predict how Earth's climate might change in the future. One of the best ways to test the reliability of such models is to see how well they recreate climates of the past.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Paleoclimate Research | U.S. Geological Survey

Lessons from the Past, Roadmap for the Future The present-day climate of the Earth is influenced by a combination of natural climate variability, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and changes in land cover (such as conversion from...

www.usgs.gov

Paleoclimate Changes and Significance of Present Global Warming

Earth’s climate has been changing since the conceivable beginning of the geological history of Earth. This is reflected by paleoclimate occurrences of ice ages, followed by consequent warmer interglacial episodes. The most recent ice age has been tentatively...

link.springer.com

Paleoclimatology - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Understanding how climate naturally varied over thousands and millions of years teaches us how Earth’s climate system works and sheds light on current, human-induced changes.

www.whoi.edu

 

[jc456]

That doesn't mean they're right.
It doesn't mean they're astronomers... because, quite frankly, they're ignoring space and the impact it has on climate change.
Also, had they been around 120,000 years ago, they'd probably have blamed humans then too. Even though it was hotter back then than now.

and it isn't 99.+%. It might be 25% at best. but old Crick likes his lies. His broken bit that he constantly repeats in here. Like he believes the number of times he posts it will make it right!!!!! hahahahahahahahahaha. It was a lie the first time and fking every time after. Ask him for how many scientists the 99.+% make up!