Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

Haha, now it's "the mainstream" hypothesis. What a clown!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term

And another clown. Try reading.
Scientific consensus

 

[jc456]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

Just the opposite

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[jc456]

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Ever since the planet was engulfed in ice

 

[westwall]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term

And another clown. Try reading.
Scientific consensus

I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.

That tells you all you need to know about climatology......it ain't MEASURABLE!

If it were there would be no need to talk about it and reach a consensus. You could MEASURE it.

Duh...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term

And another clown. Try reading.
Scientific consensus

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason a CON doesn't want you to discus it..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW

Stop being stupidly dishonest

How many published, peer reviewed papers would you like to see that seriously challenge the claim that our influence on the total atmospheric CO2 can even be detected? Like I said, we don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Post those "peer reviewed" papers from actual climate scientists then.


Zero won't take that long.

How about you post up the empirical, verifiable, observed evidence to support your supposition. Even the IPCC fails to do this as they put up a failed model and tell everyone that it is empirical evidence. A model is NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. What the IPCC is doing is scientific fraud. Only a fool believes a mathematical construct that can not equal the system it is designed to mimic.

Ask any engineer if they would fly a plane who's model showed it would fly but crashed every time it tried to take off? They would tell you to get a new model that reflected reality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.

Hahaha. Very funny, blowhard. Meanwhile this remains reality:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]

 

[SSDD]

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

 

[SSDD]

Haha, now it's "the mainstream" hypothesis. What a clown!

Mainstream within the body branch of science as opposed to some obscure little known hypothesis. Are you arguing that AGW is not the mainstream hypothesis among climate scientists?

 

[Lesh]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science

Since there IS consensus...you are "clearly" full of shit

 

[SSDD]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term

And another clown. Try reading.
Scientific consensus

Maybe you should actually read that definition...can you point to any reproducible experimental results coming out of climate science? All i see are guys like Michael Mann spending millions trying to keep his data and methodology out of the hands of other scientists in an effort to not become a laughing stock.

 

[SSDD]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science

Since there IS consensus...you are "clearly" full of shit

So lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or how about a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....

Lacking either one of those things, what exactly would consensus be based on I’d not money and lots of it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science

Since there IS consensus...you are "clearly" full of shit

Not only is there scientific consensus, it's only grown over time, worldwide, despite the increasing desperation evident in these little unscientific, highly political islands of say anything anarchy.

 

[SSDD]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science

Since there IS consensus...you are "clearly" full of shit

Not only is there scientific consensus, it's only grown over time, worldwide, despite the increasing desperation evident in these little unscientific, highly political islands of say anything anarchy.

OK...so lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. If that sort of fundamental evidence is missing, exactly what is the consensus built upon/

 

[Grumblenuts]

so called greenhouse gasses

Look, we even have folks here denying the existence of greenhouse gases. Flat Earth must be next...

 

[SSDD]

so called greenhouse gasses

Look, we even have folks here denying the existence of greenhouse gases. Flat Earth must be next...

I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?

 

[Lesh]

I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?

Providing evidence to someone who uses terms like "so called greenhouse gasses" is an exercise in futility

Friggin Deniers...

 

[SSDD]

I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?

Providing evidence to someone who uses terms like "so called greenhouse gasses" is an exercise in futility

Friggin Deniers...

Spoken like a person who knows full well that she cant post a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I am certainly able to post up actual science to support my claims.

The only “deniers” around here seem to be you warmers...denying the realty that you can’t post up any actual science to support your beliefs.

And as to my “so called” greenhouse gasses....feel free to post up a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

Yet another statement I can make in perfect confidence that neither you, nor anyone else will post any such evidence and embarrass me...because no such evidence exists...