Climate Change denial vs History

Then you should have been able to read THIS

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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

 

Actually we do have a fair idea

 

So every academy of science in every countrynaround the world is affected by the same politics

What politics would that be??

 

Ironically when the deniers can no longer deny the obvious they'll blame scientists for not doing something sooner and demand that they use science to fix the problem.

 

No, only every one that has endorsed AGW nonscience in its members' name.

The politics that says, "You can get published (or get into grad school, or get a teaching job) if you genuflect to AGW nonscience, but not if you don't."

 

I read it. It's just factually incorrect. The 97% consensus is that the earth warmed in the 20th century, and human CO2 emissions contributed to it. That is a different proposition.

 

I already proved I can think better than you, by pointing out the fact that AGW nonscience is supported by a consensus of ORGANIZATIONS, not SCIENTISTS. You are not able to think well enough to discern that difference.

 

Broadly true. They also have little interest in it. That makes them easy marks for those who DO know how to do politics, and have an interest in it:
"You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you." -- Pericles

That's just factually false. Failure mode research -- investigation of what would have happened if something that didn't happen had happened -- absorbs many billions of dollars a year.

 

Again, that's just factually false. I have posted links to many peer-reviewed papers that support my views.

 

Countries have no consciousness, and thus cannot believe in things. What you meant to say was that political operatives CLAIM their countrymen believe in it.

 

But all those papers are written by political operatives

 

So is the safety of your drinking water, your food, your car, your medicine.....and you trust those organizations with your life every day

 

So is the safety of your drinking water, your food, your car, your medicine.....and you trust those organizations with your life every day

 

Again you have to assume that this same pressure is being applied in every grad school and every university in every country throughout the world

And there are no scientific organisations that reject AGW

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[14] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[13][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

Do you realize that you're talking in circles?

 

Failure Mode is not Science! It's an inductive method used mainly for Quality Control. Methodologically speaking, Science is exactly the opposite: a deductive method.

Try again....

 

Which is why 142 countries have now signed the Paris agreement

 

No, that's just false.

 

No, 142 governments.

 

It most certainly is. And its findings are far better supported than the "findings" of AGW nonscience.

Completely false. Empirical science is not deductive.

The reason you are claiming failure mode research is not science is the same reason AGW nonscience is not science: it's based on MODELS, not MEASUREMENTS.

I already succeeded.

 

No, just the great majority of the most influential ones. The rest just tag along.

If you define AGW loosely enough.

Yes, well, you go on bruiting your politically forced "consensus." The facts are going to prove me right and you wrong more and more obviously. Take it to the bank.

 

Prove it

 

I know I am not.

 

Prove it

 

LOL!! You are the one making the positive claim, not me. You're just like every other AGW screamer, demanding "proof" when your unsupported claims are dismissed, yet supplying none for the claims in the first place. Sorry, but claims without evidence are just as validly dismissed without evidence.