97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

So what? I do not expect the fly to applaud the swatter.

 

Models may be the "currency" of whatever you want, but they are NOT studies.

I posted multiple versions of the consensus position, and you failed to point to ANYTHING debunked. Not even by models, let alone studies.

 

Consensus claims is often produced when their science is uncertain especially when they are based on a lot of models many with ZERO forecast skill demonstrated.

There have been too many Consensuses failures to take it seriously, I prefer REPRODUCIBLE research over consensus pablum's any day.

There is no Climate Emergency the small warming trend is good for the planet's health.

 

Nonsense. Many papers ("studies" in your formulation) incorporating models are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The one I provided is clearly at odds with your version of the "consensus." The matter is concluded.

 

Popular Technology

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

LINK

===

1,107 signatories many are scientists

World Climate Declaration LINK

There is no climate emergency Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.

LINK

===

Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 signatories including 9,029 with PHD

LINK

=====

Ooops there goes that silly 100% Consensus claim.........

 

... and, once again, you did not show how anything that you have posted contradicts the consensus position

 

I do not honor mere denial with replies. You were refuted and the matter is concluded.

 

Hilarious!

Thanks for playing...

 

Please see my #257.

 

He will refuse to accept his being refuted since he made an impossible to support claim of 100% consensus it was easy to blow that down with a single contrary paper while there are actually THOUSANDS of scientists who doesn't accept the long failed AGW hypothesis thus consensus claims advances nothing beneficial for science.

Reproducible research is what drive science research into new areas of understanding anything else is a distant second place.

 

Additional evidence that 100% consensus claims are howling nonsense and Reproducible papers is what drives research ahead.

All the below is from a single blog No Tricks Zone

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

LINK

===

135+ Papers: Low Sensitivity

LINK

===

600 Non Warming Graphs (1)

LINK

600 Non Warming Graphs (2)

LINK

600 Non Warming Graphs (3)

LINK

===

2m Higher Holocene Sea Levels

LINK

===

CO2 Greens the Earth

LINK

========

Then we have published Skeptic papers by the bushel!

Skeptic Papers 2021 (1) LINK

Skeptic Papers 2021 (2) LINK

Skeptic Papers 2020 (1) LINK

Skeptic Papers 2020 (2) LINK

Many more back to 2014 is available......

 

Clean it up and turn it into a press release. Oh, wait—they did.

Argumentum ad Populum.

 

Do you have an argument you would like to advance?

 

The actual consensus, yes, of course. That was always the case. It's the claimed consensus that is bogus.

See the difference?

"Claim."

smh

 

I.e., question begging.

Which does not match reality.

 

It depends on the type of record; and the farther back they go, the greater the uncertainty.

A few to several centuries to reach equilibrium.

That should be a matter of decades, at most. But the correlations don't support a substantial causal role for CO2 in determination of global surface temperature on any relevant time scale.

 

Already pointed out why I made the post:

Additional evidence that 100% consensus claims are howling nonsense and Reproducible papers is what drives research ahead.

 

It appears you have forgotten the title of the thread:

97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

and someone made claims of 100% consensus which is absurd, thus the reason WHY I posted a lot of information that shows there is a lot of scientists who see it very differently.

The last line in the post must have been missed by you:

You have no cogent argument to offer here just play this evasion game is what you do a lot.

 

Denial ain't just a river in Africa....

 

Many climate studies are studies of models, and almost all climate studies incorporate models of one kind or another. Hello?

No. What you posted was multiple different claimed consensus positions, some of which -- the ones climate realists do not take issue with -- really are consensus positions well supported by empirical research, and others of which -- the ones based on CO2-centered climate "science," which climate realists do take issue with -- are not.

That is just a bald falsehood.

 

Amazing, our tax dollars at work!

It kind of gets my goat when a greenie brags about his new electric car, after I'm the one who PAID a big pile of cash for it against my will w/ no say in the matter.

 

All of them. That's why you can't come up with a single counterexample. Mainstream science has credibility because it's earned it by being right with all of its predictions.

In contrast, you and your side have gotten every single thing wrong for 40 years running now. And yet for some reason, you expect to be taken seriously.

So, when's that new ice age arriving? You know, the one your side has been predicting nonstop for 40 years, and is still predicting? Any day now? Good luck with that.

 

I talk about science, and you start rambling about party politics.

To deniers, the issue isn't about science. They literally care nothing about the science. TheParty wants them to say something, so they say it. That's why every denier is an extreme right-winger, embracing multiple right-wing conspiracy theories. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism woiuld instantly vanish along with it. Denialism isn't the cult. Right-wing politics is the cult, and denialism is just part of the sacred dogma of that cult.

In contrast, real climate science is non-political and crosses all political boundaries all around the world. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all. That's because it's science, and not politics.

 

Someone possessing rudimentary logical abilities would have understood I was describing ice age cycles, not the current time.

You didn't understand.

 

Ho-hum.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149627/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-low

It's just as bad in 2023.

That's clearly compeltely wrong, since humans have stopped the natural cycle of cooling and turned it into fast warming.