As to the "majority of climate scientists"

The climate models in question have never, and I mean to write NEVER, been able to predict climate in the past. Predicting past climate is exactly the same process as predicting climate in the future. The models don't work. They are ridiculous; they factor the sun as a constant. The sun is anything but a constant.

 

I started a skeptic, but the climate change death cult turned me into a bona fide DENIER, like all cultists do if you disagree with them. The 'science' you are talking about is a farce. It completely ignores scope and scale, and ignores all factors that effect climate that aren't man made...

 

Why would that yield anything but another hypothesis that's no more provable than AGW?

 

A picture says a..............

 

So far, the climate models, upon which AGW is based, have been disproved. They cannot predict the climate in the past. They cannot predict climate in the future. Predicting the process in the past utilizes the exact same processes as does predicting climate in the future. Until these models are proved accurate in their predictions of past climate, I see no reason to give them any concern.

 

Sure, but we don't need a perfect explanation to falsify AGW. Even if you could account for a range of sensitivity from naturally modulated processes like 50-100%. That would go a long way in casting doubt. Personally, I think naturally modulated processes explain most of the warming up until WWII.

 

This isn't true at all. Climate scientists have built a theory of how climate changes from as many physical processes as they can identify. AGW is just the moniker given to how the theory plays out today. And remember, CO2/CH4/CFC molecules and aerosol particles behave exactly the same regardless of how they got into the atmosphere. The physical processes work the same way and with the same magnitude in the past and the present and it doesn't matter if humans are involved in the modulation of their emission or not.

 

They do quite well actually. Even the most primitive models like the one Hansen used ended up doing a pretty good for future predictions. And that was over 30 years ago.

 

We have multiple studies showing most scientists agree on global warming. None of these survey and studies are perfect but they do show together that most scientists agree that CO2 is the main driver of today's warming. The majority of experts can be wrong but in this cause there is an overwhelming amount of research. I think we need to fairly and objectively look at the evidence they are presenting.

 

You would have to take that up to the 1950's when the IPCC says CO2 began it's rise above historic levels. From WWII to the 70's it cooled even though CO2 was rising then but not in the zone the IPCC says is significant. The rise from the 70's to 2000 is almost identical to the rise from the early 1900's to the 40's so what could explain the earlier other than natural forcing but it could also explain the modern warm period too. The fact that no one knows how much is natural is a real problem for determining anthropogenic warming. The current stable temperatures are also a problem. For instance, in the US, where most of the land surface temperature records come from has not statistically changed for the last two decades.

Recently a heat map was created using the surface temperature records and there was an area in Africa that was determined to be much warmer than surrounding areas. The only problem with that is there were no surface records in that area. The warmer area was determined by algorithm based on the surrounding areas that had surface records so the lack of coverage, homogenization which can cover up to 1200 km radius, heat islands, no records from the Arctic and in fact few records from the southern hemisphere, the algorithms used should give pause to what an actual global surface temperature is.

The best global coverage is by satellite which can measure the atmosphere from the surface up and the surface record is warming faster than the troposphere which is 180 what the AGW hypothesis says should happen.

 

The primary studies on that are significantly flawed especially the Cook study that polled no one. When actual polls are given there is a wide disparity in what the effects are based on the discipline.

 

Observed science shows that the actual temperatures were closer to Hansen's C graph which stated that no CO2 emitted after 2000 so yes, Hansen got one graph right.

 

Something that may bring a halt to all of this AGW hysteria is the sun. Solar Cycle 24 is coming to an end and solar activity is the lowest it has been since the Dalton minimum of 1810. No one knows what SC25 will be like. Due to the heat retain-ability of the oceans which cover most of Earth the affects of the wax and wane of solar activity are delayed. It is the solar scientists and astrophysicists that are warning about cooling since the majority of heat comes from the sun.

 

So, to be clear, you took on a fundamentalist belief. Given no science, no evidence, no research, no education, no skill, no experience, no knowledge, no critical thinking, no research or anything else one would probably need to draw an independent opinion on a very complex topic, you decided, "It completely ignores scope and scale, and ignores all factors that effect climate that aren't man made" with no evidence whatsoever. Then, you have the audacity to get butt-hurt that you don't get to be called a skeptic?? Skeptics review the data and believe in things that are supported by scientific evidence. Deniers are exactly the same as true believers in that they draw their conclusions first, seek out confirming rhetoric, then cry about being treated unfairly. You aren't a "flat earther" you are a round earth skeptic!! You question everything (which isn't what a skeptic is) except for your pet theory which gets equal weight no matter how little evidence supports it. You are a denier because you want to be a denier. You are a denier because you are hiding from reality. You aren't a skeptic.

 

Do you have a point? Your wall of text addresses nothing. Just like how climate 'science' can't address anything that isn't man made...

 

My point is obvious, but I will try to speak a little slower for you. You know nothing about anything. Your opinion is contrary to people who know things. A smart person then fixes their opinion to align with the people that know things. It's pretty easy.

 

You are clearly not a smart person, because you still believe in a hoax, no matter how often it is debunked...

 

Oh, I forgot about that time back in "never ever happened once" when it was debunked.

 

Decades of failed predictions is enough. According to 'climate scientists' the sea levels were supposed to catastrophically rise by now, yet the rubes still buy into their nonsense. I feel sorry for you...

 

Oh, you're right. I'm an idiot. I've gone my whole life thinking that 100% amateur opinions based on 0 experience and no education didn't count as "debunking" almost every expert with a higher iq who has dedicated their lives to studying something and who's work has been double checked by other experts who have done the same. And while I'm feeling silly, here I was my whole life also thinking that the world was round. But, by using your standard, I have learned that I I've been a "rube" this whole time.

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

As you can see, the round earth theory has been debunked much more than you debunked agw.

 

just so you know, the entire educated world laughs at your type...wannabe know-it-alls that don't realize they don't know anything...

 

Global warming has not been debunked.

No they weren't. If you disagree show me where in one of the IPCC reports where they predict catastrophic sea level rise by 2019.

 

you know that moment when you hear someone claim they were abducted by aliens and had their anus probed and you do your utmost to stifle a laugh...yeah I relive that moment whenever I read the nonsensical babbling of deniers...only with the forum I don't have to get out of hearing range before I laugh...

 

Sorry you wasted your life, because you have produced no evidence of what you claim, except wild speculation paraded around as 'science'. How long before we learn the most recent data has been tampered with or otherwise unreliable. 'Climate science' has zero credibility due to its own corruption and inherent dishonesty...