What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

Probably to insure his belief in his own morality. After all when one claims to have studied and reached positions by logic and yet 2/3 of what one has shown on the board is the moral equivalent of 2+2 =25 one has to resort to such worthless bromides as claiming that one is an intellectual even as ones arguments become increasingly theological rather than scientific.

 

I'm always baffled by those who seem to think that bringing up their resumes to bolster their arguments is to be believed. It's an anonymous discussion forum. I could say I represent the Queen of England; how would anyone disprove it? Nor, even if it was true doesn't mean my legal arguments were correct. If that was the case no trials could take place because both the defense and prosecution would present "winning" arguments.

 

Are you saying that those two are not climatologists?????

WTF? Of course they are! Crichton is a Science Fiction writer. A good one, but that's what he was. He had an MD degree, but never practiced medicine. And he was a decent BASIC programmer. But, as far as AGW, he was no less a science denier than Rush Limbaugh. Definitely NOT somebody any moderately informed individual would cite as an "expert"

 

You're not following. I'm saying they are climatologists. My point was that many prominent figures in the climate discussion had their training in another field, like Crichton.

 

You haven't demonstrated that there is a significance argument here. So, equilibrium is also effected by the increases of natural outputs. I suppose this hasn't occurred to you, or that natural output is also dramatically increasing. So, show the significance if you can. Because there isn't an equilibrium here. The natural output isn't static, nor does it appear it ever will be or was.

 

Someone was cheating.
Biden Climate and Environment Deputy Director Sanctioned for Misconduct
Eric Worrall
Biden’s Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Jane Lubchenco has been sanctioned by the National Academy of Sciences, over a code of conduct violation. . . .

 

And other than their arguments, such as they are, being in agreement with your own, what makes people whose backgrounds are not in climate science any more acceptable than any other phd or an md? Everybody has a computer. Everyone can collect and collate data, and make interpretations based on that data. It isn't terribly difficult however time consuming it might be.

 

Okaaay…… Exactly what “natural outputs” are increasing

Getting out popcorn and sitting back to watch this one

 

Concerning - so what are,you going to do about it? I mean other than grizzle on the imternet

 

So, you would be happy seeing a doctor who actually trained as a carpenter?

 

I simply noted the two examples to refute your denigration of Crichton. You're just deflecting now.

 

The release of naturally occurring CO2 is increasing. It seems you didn't know this... Sad.

 

Something like 1/3 of the world pray to a man who was. Was that supposed to be a joke?

 

Is this an attempt to dodge my earlier question?

BTW just because some ancient guy who led a cult was a carpenter does not mean we have to worship every person who is a carpenter - to be honest with you I was thinking of orthopods who are more carpenters than doctors and are hopeless at general medicine

 

Where is that coming from though? The magic Greene fairy is not farting it into the atmosphere

 

I thought as much. Your comment had no deeper attack. But, since you launched it on this message..
I had a boss once, who said, don't show up unprepared. I offer you the same advice.

 

The sinks are releasing their trapped CO2 and other chemicals..methane, CO, etc... Did you know there are these awesome things called volcanos?? No?

Nature produces something like 725 Gigatons a year. Humans make around 29 gigatons. Roughly 3-5% of the total. As a function of actual natural outputs, CO2 outputs are also releasing more CO2. When folks refer to the PPM of atmospheric CO2, there is also a physical limitation of the ability of the effect of higher saturation levels. We know this. No one disputes this. And yet, the theology that is AGW simply ignores these actual scientific facts. I'm not sure if your reference of a green fairy was a personal dig or not, but knowing your audience is also necessary.

 

Still dodging the question about where the extra CO2 is coming from……. But talking of being prepared the truly prepared actually include citations when they make claims

 

So, where is the extra volcanism? I mean surely the scientists (as well as the general public) would have spotted some extra volcanoes popping up here and there

and as it has already been pointed out to you the earth is usually in equilibrium- what man is producing is ABOVE that and cumulative

 

Extra CO2, like many others is being released in lots of places. Lakes, Streams, Rivers, Tundra.. Perhaps you'd be interested in taking a gander over at those sources? If not, I suppose the madder you get the more you exhale... Populations? Do you ever think your own actions may to blame here? If you yell and scream a lot, perhaps you're a part of the problem...

 

Iceland, Tonga, Japan, Russia, Most of Indonesia and the Philippines, there is also Europe and the Canaries... There's like an F'in list here. Again, failing to know these things isn't my problem.

 

Crichton is NOT a prominent figure in the climate discussion. He's just a famous guy who denied scientific fact. And, if he were alive, would have probably been bright enough to admit that he was wrong when year after year temperature records are broken, as was predicted by scientists (if not worse than predicted). Whereas the two you mention are groundbreaking climatologists.

Your claim is like saying that Max Plank didn't have his training in Quantum Mechanics and then comparing him to a medical doctor who doesn't believe in the existence of subatomic particles.

 

It was a well researched book with numerous references. Temperature records have been broken year after year for thousands of years.

 

You mean besides the fact that they were right and he was WRONG?

 

The evidence that they are right does not exist.