The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

Nice logical fallacy, lmao. And yes it is a hard science, they can in fact see and test the results of warming. And all the smartest people across the world can't figure out any way to disprove that it's being caused by man, because nothing else matches the data. There is a reason why so many scientists across the world believe the same thing, it's not some "testing facility" for eggs, lol. And there is a reason why the largest group of deniers are uneducated American conservatives. You guys literally have no clue what you are talking about. But it's hilarious to watch you guys try.

 

This is not a scientific survey once again.

The survey participants were selected; They were selected from Universities; The survey was a mail in response; and those who didn't agree with anthropogenic global warming were considered out outliers.

The survey is not scientific because it assumes that university professors are representative of all climate scientists and because most of the surveys mailed out were not returned, which could demonstrate that those who don't believe in the "consensus" of scientists meme or the phony global warming schemes couldn't be bothered with the phony scientific survey.

It also ignores the fact that there isn't any global warming. How stupid are scientists that believe in global warming when the globe isn't warming?

 

So you're basing your understanding of global warming off an 18 year period? Gotcha, lol.

 

No. I base my understanding of climate science based on the understanding of what the primary driver of climate is.

The primary driver of climate is the Sun and the Milankovitch Cycles. This is not disputed. It is known science. It has been known for over 100 years. It is not a fad pseudoscience based on the political urge to tax the poor and control the population.

To be clear, there is no consensus of climate scientists or other scientists on the issue of man caused global warming, and those perpetuating this nonsense have a financial interest in continuing with the fraud. From phony Climatologists, to politicians, they are getting the gullible to following their bogus science to line their pockets, or give themselves more power at the expense of the middle class and the poor. If any of you believe that we can change the climate by instituting taxes on the poor and the middle class then you are the biggest suckers on the planet.

The real science deniers are the ones who ignore the sciences of math, statistics, computer sciences, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now. Earth climate cycles are driven by changes in the Milankovitch cycles.

We are in an Ice Age that is 2.6 million years old.

The Earth goes through regular cycles called "glaciations". These glaciations or glacial periods can last from 80 to 100 thousand years.

We are currently in an interglacial period. This is a period of time between glaciations which lasts about 12,000 years.

This is what is known as "science". Anyone who denies that we are in an interglacial period that will likely end within the next thousand years or so is what is known as a "science denier".

The Sun has a significant influence on the climate.

The warming the Earth is experiencing in not outside normal variations in temperatures. In fact, it is cooler now than during the Medieval Warming Period. The global temperatures have not risen in the last 18 years in spite of all the predictions of all the anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theorists.

Global Warming: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory
Paperback – March 30, 2010
by John M. Quinn (Author)

The 97% consensus myth​

Whenever I hear the alarmist make the absurd claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on global warming, I always invite them to show me the scientific survey of climate scientists which says that. They can't because their isn't one. There never has been one. The number is based on a study. A faulty study. A biased study. A study that was intended to deceive. A study with a predetermined outcome.

 

Who says any of the alarmist pap today is correct? Tell us what the diffinitive sensitivity to CO2 is?

 

[img=javascript:clickicon(':headslap') Bravo (or madam). You, and others like Hoosier have just passed the scientists of the world (WORLD) in your knowledge of what is happening to this planet. Perhaps you could share with us all of this wonderful information you've picked up - not from b.s. political sites, but from science and not from deniers who're who are being paid by by big energy. When you do, come back and be prepared to be sent packing, again, because you do not have the world of science or evidence or anything else on your side. Just like every other joker with that spiel who peddled that line.

Now - are there things to be discovered? Yes - of course there are because that is the world of science. So what? Please - do us both a favor and go read some really decent literature on the subject.

BTW - I've looked around and who's whispering in my ear about this - I see what is going on. And I am sure as hell ain't stupid. Tale your own advice.

 

I've given up telling you just about anything; it's a waste of my time. And, no, we've had hour arguments. You lost.

 

You bought it the first time and they were wrong. You bought it again and again. Maybe you will get a clue.

 

Sure I do and it is nonsense with absolutly no scientific backing. You have posted your nonsense so many times that you have become the poster child for scientific ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

She can't ever lose because she lives in a fictitious world devoid of science and fact.

 

You mean no science your new religion will accept.

 

True. Plant life takes in carbon dioxide and puts out oxygen, so what's the problem?

 

*sigh*

Here we go again with half truths. Man has affected the weather. But those effects are coming from haarp.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/haarp-...er-modification-electromagnetic-warfare/20407

What do we call those who disbelieve? Haarp deniers? As usual, social statists miss the mark entirely.

 

And no scientific organization will accept it either. Other than conspiracy got any idea why?

 

Consensus is NOT science.

 

You evidently are unaware of the actual science or problems with it but instead, like many, rely on logical fallacy as your argument.

 

And what do you rely on?

 

Wrong. Am well qualified to analyze the science having degrees both in Engineering and physics. What the critics of AGW rely on is that there is no absolute proof and that is of course true. But the overwhelming preponderance of evidence does point to a very high probability that AGW is happening.

Asking for 100% certainty that AGW is real is perfectly OK as long as you are willing to acknowledge that 100% certainty is your requirement for taking any action.

But I am interested in exactly which logical fallacy you think I am relying on.

 

No, I didn't "buy" it the first time; actually, I studied it, then did a bunch of research. Obviously, somebody was lying. Turns out, that was you. Don't misunderstand - you did tell the truth on many occasions, but it just didn't matter because you were so far off base; when you added it up, it really meant nothing to the shape of the argument. Basically, it was just a distraction.

 

Hey there - I don't have to explain one damn thing to you. You want the answer, go find it. I'm not Google and if that is your "proof", well, that's pretty pitiful. I'm sure there are a lot more things out there that cold use an explanation. So? They may or may not be found in time, but right now, all the answers point to us (people) as the current cause. Deal with it or just walk away, denying everything. Either way, it makes me no nevermind.

 

Science, not media or alarmist advocates or logical fallacies.

 

Do you think this is something new for this part of the world?

 

Then give us the difinitive sesitivity to CO2.

 

The man believes what he believes , don't bother him with facts

 

All you have ever done in climate threads is attack people. I doubt you have read anything other than alarmist advocates or media.