Proof of AGW fraud

[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.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

 

[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 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.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years. Idiot.

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Moron

Alas, you are the moron...here is a simple experiment that even a goob like you could perform to see the effect...open two room temperature carbonated drinks.... now set one in the refrigerator, and one out on the counter.. Revisit both cans in 24 hours. You will find that the drink in the refrigerator still has some carbonation left. It won't be as fizzy as when it was first opened, but it will still be carbonated. The drink on the counter, however, will be as flat as it can be. That is because as the liquid warmed, it outgassed the CO2 that it was holding. Simple empirical evidence of the different ability of liquid to hold CO2 and what happens as liquids warm. Now whether or not you will be able to apply that evidence and knowledge to the real world remains to be seen.

 

[SSDD]

In such tight circles each denialist warms and out gasses instead of thinking or responding responsibly. As the masturbation continues the others warm further, exacerbating the already increased warming which, in turn, has been witnessed to increase their out gassing. This cyclic jerking invariably ends in an embarrassing spontaneous explosion of fluid all over one another requiring immediate bathing and increased alcohol consumption to help them forget what always happens yet again..

So you have nothing but more logical fallacy. It seems to be a pattern with you. I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2...you complained about the author of one and apparently ignored the rest..and when questioned about any specific problem with the paper beyond the fact that "YOU" didn't think the author was qualified even though the reviewers and publishers did, you voiced no complaint over his findings. Did you ever come up with a specific problem with his findings that might be reported to the reviewers or publisher, or was that weak assed ad hominem the best you could manage?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

 

[jc456]

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.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

 

[jc456]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.

That's the problem they are counting on uneducated voters who fell asleep during the second grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff.


.

 

[jc456]

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.

That's the problem they are counting on uneducated voters who fell asleep during the second grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff.


.

when the ice age started its warm up, all the ice that melted contributed CO2 to the atmosphere, no human alive. And, I want them to tell me why the ice age had started to end? Man wasn't here, and the planet got warmer. Simply put to them, why?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2

Funny coincidence. In a scholarly manner, I blow my noise into multiple "papers" and then submit them to various trash cans each and every day.

FAQ :: SSRN

FAQ :: SSRN

Every submitted paper is reviewed by SSRN staff to ensure that the paper is a part of the scholarly discourse in its subject area. SSRN does not provide peer review for papers in the eLibrary. An author may submit a paper that is not scholarly – for example, an editorial or opinion paper.

It snot real! You provide only garbage. NASA, you know, the ones providing you clowns with all that data you then deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent to others? Yeah them. Reality:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Poor babies. Don't eat your heart out in one sitting.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.

That's the problem they are counting on uneducated voters who fell asleep during the second grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff.


.

when the ice age started its warm up, all the ice that melted contributed CO2 to the atmosphere, no human alive. And, I want them to tell me why the ice age had started to end? Man wasn't here, and the planet got warmer. Simply put to them, why?

Gee, come to think of it, why didn't it get even colder??? The list of stupid questions and comments you shameless idiots cook up is truly mind numbing!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
Careful. Tough questions, fellas!

 

[SSDD]

I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2

Funny coincidence. In a scholarly manner, I blow my noise into multiple "papers" and then submit them to various trash cans each and every day.

So you have nothing...that's what I thought.

Every submitted paper is reviewed by SSRN staff to ensure that the paper is a part of the scholarly discourse in its subject area. SSRN does not provide peer review for papers in the eLibrary. An author may submit a paper that is not scholarly – for example, an editorial or opinion paper.

I asked you if you had any specific complaint about the papers...errors in either the data or the methodology...apparenly you have none...you are simply a science denier who refuses to accept anything that doesn't mesh with your beliefs...

It snot real! You provide only garbage. NASA, you know, the ones providing you clowns with all that data you then deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent to others?

Again...I asked you for specific errors in either the data or the methodology of the papers I provided..you call them garbage...based on what? What errors are in the papers...or do you just believe them to be garbage because they question what you believe?

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

And I keep asking for some actual science to support that claim and you provide nothing...the fact is that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...that being the case, exactly what is this consensus based upon?

Poor babies. Don't eat your heart out in one sitting.

Sorry guy...at this point I am just laughing at you...actually offering up your opinion...as a defense of peer reviewed, published science...could you possibly put up a weaker defense.

 

[SSDD]

Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
Careful. Tough questions, fellas!

Is this discussion about the tobacco industry? does it prove or disprove anything that has been provided by you? Of course not...it is just another logical fallacy on your part..

Is logical fallacy really all you have?

 

[Grumblenuts]

See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof you have nothing!

 

[SSDD]

See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof you have nothing!

Answer what? You're fallacy. This discussion is about the climate. You seem to be arguing that climate science is much like the tobacco industry pushing pseudoscience. I keep asking for actual evidence to support your claims and you keep not providing any...that would be because all that climate science has provided you with is pseudoscience and there isn't much point in posting that crap up...so you have few options other than to try and deflect from that fact...logical fallacy just won't get you far against someone who is posting actual science up asking for actual science in rebuttal...

 

[SSDD]

See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof you have nothing!

I asked you what specific problems you found with either the data or the methodology in any of the multiple peer reviewed, published papers you were provided with. Rather than answer the question, you try to deflect to the tobacco industry? Alas, that is proof that you are the one who has nothing...must suck to be so weak in a discussion.

 

[jc456]

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

And plants and animals were HUGE.



.

I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.

That's the problem they are counting on uneducated voters who fell asleep during the second grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff.


.

when the ice age started its warm up, all the ice that melted contributed CO2 to the atmosphere, no human alive. And, I want them to tell me why the ice age had started to end? Man wasn't here, and the planet got warmer. Simply put to them, why?

Gee, come to think of it, why didn't it get even colder??? The list of stupid questions and comments you shameless idiots cook up is truly mind numbing!

why didn't it get even colder? you have no fking idea how cold it got. what you can't answer is why did it suddenly start to thaw? come on genius, give us that answer? why don't you give an answer?

 

[jc456]

Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
Careful. Tough questions, fellas!

I thought this was about climate? how did tobacco enter in? deflection from an answer?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2

Funny coincidence. In a scholarly manner, I blow my noise into multiple "papers" and then submit them to various trash cans each and every day.

FAQ :: SSRN

FAQ :: SSRN

Every submitted paper is reviewed by SSRN staff to ensure that the paper is a part of the scholarly discourse in its subject area. SSRN does not provide peer review for papers in the eLibrary. An author may submit a paper that is not scholarly – for example, an editorial or opinion paper.

It snot real! You provide only garbage. NASA, you know, the ones providing you clowns with all that data you then deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent to others? Yeah them. Reality:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Poor babies. Don't eat your heart out in one sitting.

What Grumble boy leaves out:

". What is the SSRN? ↑ back to top

SSRN is an open-access online preprint community providing valuable services to leading academic schools and government institutions. Specializing primarily in social sciences, including economics, law, corporate governance, and humanities, SSRN is branching out in to other science disciplines providing opportunities for scholars to post their early research, collaborate on theories and discoveries, and get credit for their ideas before peer reviewed publication.

SSRN is instrumental as a starting point for PhD students, professors, and institutional faculty to post early-stage research, prior to publication in academic journals.

SSRN provides the online database of early scholarly research – a permanent and searchable online library – always available, worldwide. We make it simple for authors to post their working papers and abstracts. Academics and researchers can browse the SSRN data library and upload their own papers free of charge. Majority of papers can be downloaded from SSRN free of charge. Metrics on author rankings at a glance."

bolding mine

You have been exposed as being misleading, you didn't refute anything either.

Your ignorance on how science advances, since not ALL valid research gets published in journals by the original researcher, it can be picked up in SEMINARS, Phone conversations, mail and e-mails and so on.