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

[abu afak]

BlackAgain accused me of Lying but can't show it in any way.
He is lying BackAgain.
Again:

Actually, that’s a Lie. But since you fancy yourself as being all scientific, you go with it.

Now I know this is going to be difficult for a DISHONEST and STUPID one-Line POS like you BUT.. You can't just say it's a lie Without showing such.
I gave examples of other similarly accepted theories.

so you are just a 12 IQ Hostile with No backing because you don't even know how this works.
"No" or "Lie" is Not debate/refutation, it's an 8 yr old.

EDIT: Below he says I am "wrong".. but AGAIN... cannot show it in any way.
BackAgain is a stupid one line TROLL.

Everyone else, see my sig for crazy BlackAgain in action.
`

 

[BackAgain]

What's a lie? He was agreeing with you that the consensus governed science.

Read his whole post. I know it’s hard. Babu is a poor communicator. But still, he’s wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

BlackAgain accused me of Lying but can't show it in any way.
He is lying BackAgain.
Again:



Now I know this is going to be difficult for a DISHONEST and STUPID one-Line POS like you BUT.. You can't just say it's a lie Without showing such.
I gave examples of other similarly accepted theories.

so you are just a 12 IQ Hostile with No backing because you don't even know how this works.
"No" or "Lie" is Not debate/refutation, it's an 8 yr old.

Everyone else, see my sig for crazy BlackAgain in action.
`

Not only are you lying baboon Afuck, but now you’re whining about being properly identified as a liar.

In any event, consensus isn’t a part of the scientific method.

Just deal with that fact and go change your tampon.

 

[Crick]

Read his whole post. I know it’s hard. Babu is a poor communicator. But still, he’s wrong.

Hmm... it's with you that I've been disagreeing.

You’re the one talking about “consensus,” stupid. But at least there is no hope for you.

Please explain how you would determine if some theory were widely accepted?

 

[abu afak]

Not only are you lying baboon Afuck, but now you’re whining about being properly identified as a liar.

In any event, consensus isn’t a part of the scientific method.

Just deal with that fact and go change your tampon.

Here is what I said and it remains true.
Consensus comes AFTER Years/DECADES OF "Scientific Method" performed and Agreed upon by Hundreds/Thousands of Scientists worldwide.

Abu afak:​

""Actually it does.​

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence. (aka sci method)​

Over time (if Correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.​

Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.​

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.​

The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)""​

This remains TRUE. 100% TRUE.

HackAgain?​

`​

 

[BackAgain]

. it's with you that I've been disagreeing.

Which means that you’re claiming that consensus has something to do with the scientific method. Which you’ve also denied. Snap out of it.

Please explain how you would determine if some theory were widely accepted?

Who cares?

 

[BackAgain]

Here is what I said and it remains true.
Consensus comes AFTER Years/DECADES OF "Scientific Method" performed and Agreed upon by Hundreds/Thousands of Scientists worldwide.

Abu afak:​

""Actually it does.​

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence. (aka sci method)​

Over time (if Correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.​

Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.​

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.​

The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)""​

This remains TRUE. 100% TRUE.

HackAgain?​

`​

Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.

Aboob Dumfuk?

 

[abu afak]

Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.

Aboob Dumfuk.

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.
As I explained in my last..
Consensus takes DECADES of Consistent Experiments and observations by THOUSANDS OF Scientists.
It IS only consensus BECAUSE of a gigantic amount of consistent Scientific Method over decades.

you lose BlackAgain. the illiterate POS conspiracYst.
Last word away/one-line Scvmbag.

`

 

[BackAgain]

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.
As I explained in my last..
Consensus takes DECADES of Consistent Experiments and observations by THOUSANDS OF Scientists.
It IS only consensus BECAUSE of a gigantic amount of consistent Scientific Method over decades.

you lose BlackAgain. the illiterate POS conspiracYst.

`

Zzz. Once again for the maroons:

Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.

Hurry back to violently agree with me again, baboo

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is what I said and it remains true.
Consensus comes AFTER Years/DECADES OF "Scientific Method" performed and Agreed upon by Hundreds/Thousands of Scientists worldwide.

Abu afak:​

""Actually it does.​

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence. (aka sci method)​

Over time (if Correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.​

Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.​

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.​

The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)""​

This remains TRUE. 100% TRUE.

HackAgain?​

`​

AGW Scientific Method

Theory: American CO2 is causing Climate Change

Step 1: Do you agree?

Step 2 If Yes, We have Consensus

Step 3 If No, ignore the Denier, go to Step 2

 

[jc456]

How is it that you continue to post a link to an article that SPECIFICALLY STATES YOUR CONTENTION IS WRONG ???

Do YOU have an IQ over 10?

Irony at its finest

 

[EMH]

Consensus comes AFTER Years/DECADES OF "Scientific Method" performed

LMFAO!!!!

This is the "scientific method" used. When the instruments record data that refutes the Co2 fraud, the data is FUDGED to show "warming" that does not exist in the data....

and then there is a "consensus" that only fudge matters, data does not... Scientific? Hardly. Obviously fudged fraud....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Crick]

LMFAO!!!!

This is the "scientific method" used. When the instruments record data that refutes the Co2 fraud, the data is FUDGED to show "warming" that does not exist in the data....

and then there is a "consensus" that only fudge matters, data does not... Scientific? Hardly. Obviously fudged fraud....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

The link you've just provided and that you've provided on multiple prior posts, directly refutes your comment. You have been told this. That you continue to include this link in your posts drives me to only two possible conclusions. You're either absurdly ignorant or you are putting it up there knowingly. That would make you a troll; certainly not an unreasonable conclusion given all your prior posts.

 

[EMH]

directly refutes your comment

LOL!!!!

It outs the FUDGING PROCESS behind the Co2 FRAUD.

Only you believe FUDGE is real... and the DATA does not exist...

 

[Crick]

It outs the FUDGING PROCESS behind the Co2 FRAUD.
Only you believe FUDGE is real... and the DATA does not exist.

I do believe mainstream science. Believing, as do you, that ALL the world's scientists are in a massive conspiracy to lie to the public FAILS A BASIC SANITY CHECK.

 

[EMH]

ALL the world's scientists

Absolutely laughable.

30,000 actual scientists signed a petition saying they did not buy the Co2 fraud.

You have 5,000 TAXPAYER FUNDED FUDGEBAKING LIARS addicted to BILKING THE TAXPAYER...

FAILS A BASIC SANITY CHECK.

Anyone who thinks highly correlated satellite and balloon data needs to be FUDGED fails a sanity check.

Anyone who thinks Co2 melted North America and froze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME fails a sanity check

Anyone who believes the oceans are warming despite NO BREAKOUT IN CANE activity fails a sanity check

Anyone who thinks Antarctica is slush should go camp out there....

 

[jc456]

The link you've just provided and that you've provided on multiple prior posts, directly refutes your comment. You have been told this. That you continue to include this link in your posts drives me to only two possible conclusions. You're either absurdly ignorant or you are putting it up there knowingly. That would make you a troll; certainly not an unreasonable conclusion given all your prior posts.

What part refutes?

 

[Crick]

What part refutes?

It's a short article. Have you not read it? Are you not familiar with the claim that EMH has made here in all caps several dozen times? There was a good reason the radiosonde and satellite data didn't match the surface measurements. When they discovered the cause and corrected for it, they did match. You needn't bother with your claim that its all lies. You'd have to explain why it didn't match in the first place? Did everyone save Roy Spencer forget about the radiosondes and the satellites?

 

[jc456]

It's a short article. Have you not read it? Are you not familiar with the claim that EMH has made here in all caps several dozen times? There was a good reason the radiosonde and satellite data didn't match the surface measurements. When they discovered the cause and corrected for it, they did match. You needn't bother with your claim that its all lies. You'd have to explain why it didn't match in the first place? Did everyone save Roy Spencer forget about the radiosondes and the satellites?

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.!!!


Hahaha hahaha, what was the error?

 

[Crick]

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.!!!


Hahaha hahaha, what was the error?

Hahahaha hahaha... this: Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment