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

[abu afak]

("Neurotic basket cases"???)

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?​

SciTech Daily
By IOP PUBLISHING - OCTOBER 20, 2021

"....Out of all survey respondents who answered the primary question about the cause of global warming (n = 2,548), 91.1% responded that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. This is roughly 11% higher than the 80% agreement found by the 2009 study when asking a similar question about AGW. In addition, the authors found that 100% of the most actively publishing climate experts – those who had published 20 or more climate papers each between 2015 and 2019 – accept that global warming is human-caused.

“The findings show that consensus has increased across the board. The findings also reaffirm that consensus increases with the level of expertise – the more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to understand that humans are responsible for climate change. Near 100% of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans,”says Peter Doran...."

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?

How has scientific agreement on the anthropogenic nature of climate change evolved in 10 years? Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. Whereas in 1996, reports hedged statements with phra

scitechdaily.com

`

 

[Oddball]

You want centuries old acid test to discuss what was first even noted 100 year ago?
`

Yes,...Those benchmarks have determined what science is for centuries...The only reason you want to ignore them is because your pseudo-scientific doomsday scam story can't measure up to them.

 

[Oddball]

("Neurotic basket cases"???)

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?​

SciTech Daily
By IOP PUBLISHING - OCTOBER 20, 2021

"....Out of all survey respondents who answered the primary question about the cause of global warming (n = 2,548), 91.1% responded that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. This is roughly 11% higher than the 80% agreement found by the 2009 study when asking a similar question about AGW. In addition, the authors found that 100% of the most actively publishing climate experts – those who had published 20 or more climate papers each between 2015 and 2019 – accept that global warming is human-caused.

“The findings show that consensus has increased across the board. The findings also reaffirm that consensus increases with the level of expertise – the more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to understand that humans are responsible for climate change. Near 100% of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans,”says Peter Doran...."

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?

How has scientific agreement on the anthropogenic nature of climate change evolved in 10 years? Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. Whereas in 1996, reports hedged statements with phra

scitechdaily.com

`

"Consensus" is an artifice of politics, not science.

And yes, the poor saps who believe these doomsday charlitans have been turned into neurotic basket cases.

 

[abu afak]

"Consensus" is an artifice of politics, not science.

And yes, the poor saps who believe these doomsday charlitans have been turned into neurotic basket cases.

Vaccines are also a Consensus. About the same in percent as AGW among specialists in the field.
They work.
Their benefit outweighs their side effects and the few anti-vaxxers/deniers.
One CAN find a few articles/studies about the evils of C19 vaccine, but it's a strong consensus they are a positive.

Science works BY Consensus.
Scientific Theories are Not proven, they are affirmed by consistent observations over time.
AGW, Atomic theory, Evolution, etc.
As I showed in my last, that consensus has grown since the 90s.

And of course Climate scientists are Not "Neurotic basket cases," the Trolling OP.


Pre-Sig: I Post ON TOPIC.
To the degree your post is I thank you.
But I will do my best to embarrass and put down One-line or Insult-only trolls due to the Lack of moderation on USMB. (Home OF the RW trolls.. perhaps 70%)

 

[Oddball]

Vaccines are also a Consensus. About the same in percent as AGW among specialists in the field.
They work.
Their benefit outweighs their side effects and the few anti-vaxxers/deniers.
One CAN find a few articles/studies about the evils of C19 vaccine, but it's a strong consensus they are a positive.

Science works BY Consensus.
Scientific Theories are Not proven, they are affirmed by consistent observations over time.
AGW, Atomic theory, Evolution, etc.
As I showed in my last, that consensus has grown since the 90s.

And of course Climate scientists are Not "Neurotic basket cases," the Trolling OP.


Pre-Sig: I Post ON TOPIC.
To the degree your post is I thank you.
But I will do my best to embarrass and put down One-line or Insult-only trolls due to the Lack of moderation on USMB. (Home OF the RW trolls.. perhaps 70%)

blablablablabla

The "scientists" are a closed cabal of intellectual mutual masturbators, who exclude and defame all with the temerity to disagree with them...That's not science, that's a doomsday cult.

 

[abu afak]

blablablablabla

The "scientists" are a closed cabal of intellectual mutual masturbators, who exclude and defame all with the temerity to disagree with them...That's not science, that's a doomsday cult.

Glad to see the Grudge feedback by Meister who gave my rational post a dislike and your 100% Trolling, 100% anti-science post a like... and without comment or agreement/rebuttal.

Overtly demonstrating his juvenile and Biased Mooderation on both a political and personal level.
`

 

[abu afak]

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus​

In 1859 Tyndall used a collection of apparatus, including this tube to measure the absorptive powers of gases in the atmosphere. The result of his experiments was the discovery of Greenhouse Gases and their effects on the earth.

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus

In 1859, discovered the Greenhouse Effect using this tube amongst a collection of apparatus by measuring the absorptive power

www.rigb.org

That's about the same time Darwin noted Evolution.
Today we have deniers of both theories/FACTS.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's about the same time Darwin noted Evolution.
Today we have deniers of both theories/FACTS.

`

How's Exxon's market cap lately?

 

[abu afak]

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

One thing is certain.

Co2 has precisely nothing to do with earth climate change

You and CrusaderCrank are GARBAGE. You post No info ON THE TOPIC/debate, just denial and gossip.
The usual here on the home of RW Trolls: USMB.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Astrophysicists make observations consistent with the predictions of an alternative theory of gravity

Yeah, we're not 100% certain gravity works as we thought, but we know with 100% certainty that American CO2 will end all life on Earth in 10 years unless they accept Communism

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You and CrusaderCrank are GARBAGE and Barely human.
`

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[ding]

The OP was beaten down like a redheaded step child on the 1st page by flacaltenn

 

[abu afak]

The OP was beaten down like a redheaded step child on the 1st page by flacaltenn

Really? Which of his posts as a "Beat Down."
they were all the usual Laughable replies.
You're confusing his Many Transparent Overt SPAMMING/BURY attempts with the (Embarrassing-for-him) Truth.
He likes to try and intimidate in Bunches.

ie, his first:

'"FlaCalTeen: "You started this out all VERY UNscientifically.. In science, a consensus requires a SINGLE very specific question.. What QUESTION is this consensus BASED ON? Can't give you references to authors or papers UNLESS YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC QUESTION.​

Because GW ACTUALLY REQUIRES about 100 KEY QUESTIONS to have a "consensus" on the ENTIRE TOPIC.""​

This is even more Idiotic than FCT's usual post.
In fact, the very entry in Wiki is about the AGW consensus alone and does NOT Require "100 KEY QUESTIONS."
It's a MORONIC POST.
The Strawman of an IDIOT.
The consensus on Evolution also does not require "100 Key questions."

This thread was Very Damaging to him/his denial.
As you can see in my post #20, I referenced a simultaneous and baseless Warning he Also issued to me. WOW!

ANYTHING ELSE you would like me to Shred that MORON on, I'd be glad to.
And I have absolutely GUTTED HIM him many times in the section, including in his Own Sticky at the top.

`

 

[Crick]

Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 720340

Please show the effect of the heat that you think is driving the climate. You don't have a clue about the actual relationship in the atmosphere. How is the energy passed? What is the reaction to that energy? Dissipation? Sequester, what is the reaction? You keep putting up this graph, but you have no idea what it means.

 

[abu afak]

Please show the effect of the heat that you think is driving the climate. You don't have a clue about the actual relationship in the atmosphere. How is the energy passed? What is the reaction to that energy? Dissipation? Sequester, what is the reaction? You keep putting up this graph, but you have no idea what it means.

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 720352


`

And yet we have seen just 30% of the warming that this rise in trace gas should produce. SO, what is the atmosphere doing to this gas to limit its ability to warm? Where is the Mid Tropospheric hot spot that must form if it were warming. Abu posts up crap just like Crick, not having a clue how it reacts to other atmospheric gases and water vapor.

 

[abu afak]

And yet we have seen just 30% of the warming that this rise in trace gas should produce. SO, what is the atmosphere doing to this gas to limit its ability to warm? Where is the Mid Tropospheric hot spot that must form if it were warming. Abu posts up crap just like Crick, not having a clue how it reacts to other atmospheric gases and water vapor.

Billy Boob is a laugh a minute.
Every post is a false claim.
"30%" according to WHO?

How are the 'useless-over-85°' solar panels' doing?

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boob is a laugh a minute.
Every post is a false claim.
"30%" according to WHO?

How are the 'useless-over-85°' solar panels' doing you ******* Idiot?

`

Way to go moron...

Let me help you and Crick..

The LOG of CO2:


According to empirical experiment we should have seen about 2 deg C warming the last 200 years. we have seen but 0.6 deg C... Now explain why. This is CO2 alone. This means our atmosphere is dampening the reaction not enhancing it. This means CAGW as a hypothesis is wrong.