97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

It must suck being a denier.

Whatever TheParty commands, they've repeated it faithfully, for decades. And nobody pays any attention. Everyone knows they're peddling junk pseudoscience. That must be really depressing.

I suppose that's why they gather in these SafeSpaces, and pass weird conspiracy theories back and forth. Many of them don't even involve climate. They're just giving each other emotional affirmation.

It's only going to get worse for them. With the 3-year La Nina period ending and El Nino coming along, in a year, high temperature records will be getting shattered.

You know what that means. Deniers, you need to put more emphasis on your "ALL THE DATA IS FAKE!" conspiracies. That's the only avenue of retreat you have left.

 

We are already in an ice age for about the last 2.6 million years now fella and hardly anyone actually says it will be going into a glacial phase at this time true some are predicting a cooling trend which may end by next year when an El-Nino comes along.....

I haven't been predicting a massive cool down at all and neither has most others thus your misleading claims are just worthless.

Climate predictions have been wrong for many years as shown by the dumb first prediction in the 1990 IPCC report:

Here is the FULL quote straight from the IPCC report LINK:

It never got close to .30C/decade heck rarely even reached the .20C/decade trend level currently at all, from WOOD FOR TREES LINK



A sum total of about .35C increase in 32 years.

===

UAH shows a .13C/decade rate from 1979 or about +.55C total from 1979.



LINK

Not even close...... LOL

 

You're full of insults, not answers.

 

No, it isn't even warming at all now and for at least 100 months which is nearly 9 years.

The New Pause lengthens: 100 Months with No Warming At All

LINK



The graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies. The least-squares method was recommended by Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia as a reasonable method of showing the trend on stochastic temperature data.

Recall that the Pause graph does not constitute a prediction: it simply reports the longest period, working back from the present, during which the temperature trend is not positive.

As always, here is the full 45-year UAH dataset from December 1978 to December 2022, showing a far from dramatic global warming trend equivalent to just 0.134 C/decade:

===

You sure know how to be wrong so often......

 

But you don't present facts. _We_ present facts. In response, you scream "IS NOT!" and wave your hands around.

Nobody here was talking about race, until you jumped in to toss out some race cards.

I think everyone's years of not taking you seriously have definitely come to a middle.

Unsupported assertion on your part, not backed up by any evidence, and contradicted by the evidence.

The Milankovitch cycles would have the earth slowly cooling now. Instead, the earth is warming quickly. Thus, it is demonstrated that Milankovitch cycles are not the primary climate driver now.

A theory of climate, to be correct, has to account for all of the evidence.

Your "natural cycles" theory does not account for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the polar amplification, or the decrease in outgong longwave in the GHG bands.

Therefore, your theory is wrong.

AGW theory does account for all of the evidence, hence it is the accepted theory.

 

The 97% claim is an irrelevant mass media conflict generating blather.

 

UAH. 'Nuff said.

If an honest person wanted to know about surface temperatures, they'd use these amazing devices called "thermometers", which are placed at the surface, and which measure temperature directly.

If someone had an agenda, they'd use satellite microwave measurements from the mid-troposphere, which are then fed through a model that uses all kinds of fudge factors.

You chose the fudgy model over the direct measurements, which is the pseudoscience way of doing things.

 

Proving nothing.

 

That's it? That's the best you have? A slight overprediction of the warming rate in a 32-year old report?

You are desperate.

In contrast, your side couldn't even get the direction of the change right.

 

I notice that your post has ZERO counterpoints in it, and I posted hadcrut4 which you ignored.

Satellite Temperature data are being used by Frank Wentz (RSS) who is a warmist/alarmists that also shows a warming trend well below .20C/decade.

You chose to ignore the data and the failed IPCC 1990 prediction.

 

I failed to read your previous posts. If you are referring only to prehistoric theoreticals I have no argument with your position.

Thanks for the reminder it’s important to read the full context before responding.

 

Haw haw haw haw haw who stated this claim that I so easily destroyed on the first try:

I gave you that counterexample and the overprediction was about 50% too high that is a massive failure!

 

The fact that you cannot demonstrate a shred of actual evidence, for example, your assertion that Milankovich cycles are unsupported is ridiculous. More, the evidence, in fact, doesn't contradict the cycle. You cannot, for example, explain the existence of the third consecutive La Nina year. It cannot. You cannot. The problem with being polemic, as you are here, is suggesting that the world around you doesn't exist because of your religious fervor to adhere to the AGW catechism. It just doesn't make sense. More, your whataboutism is the same tactic you deplore in others. So, why should we tolerate your use of it?

 

The really funny thing here is that those awesome things called thermometers aren't documenting the actual heat your own methodology requires. You don't factor out heat islands, for example. And when you remove actual thermometers from those islands, the heating isn't observed. Sorry, to actually confront you with the actual facts. So, when measured atmospheric temps are evaluated, your response is then, squirrel because obviously, they don't support your feelz. And that is actually where you're at..

 

So, your excuse is that there is a consensus that scientists claim. And there is a "secret" consensus that you are privy to which scientists don't claim.

Hilarious! You have abandoned the whole point of this thread (the title), and your making up excuses sink you even further. You should have left it at admitting you were wrong.

 

Science denialists like yourself would know that fact very well...

 

But the poster @Jack Hays thinks that the models ARE studies.

Models can guide a study. They can motivate a study. They can bring to attention areas that might (or might not) be worth studying. They could even illustrate possible consequences of a study by making predictions. But they are NOT studies. And I asked for ONE study. And science denialists have failed.

But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that even this model doesn't contradict the consensus position.

 

No, there is a consensus of what climate science has actually established, but scientists don't typically claim it because it is not controversial.

No, there is the widely publicized but entirely bogus "consensus" that AGW scaremongers falsely claim scientists claim.

 

According to you, it was controversial when you wrote the title of this thread. All you need to do is retract it. Why all the silly excuses?

 

No. It is the bogus AGW scaremongers' claim that 97% of climate scientists support anti-fossil-fuel hysteria that is controversial and has been debunked.

Why would I retract an objectively correct statement?

 

Remember, you can't gaslight those who aren't part of your cult. We know you're just making crazy stories up

Any progress in the scientific community with your stuff? No? You're just staying in your SafeSpace and screaming conspiracies? Well, have fun with that.

There's more of your famous "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" reasoning.

Go on. Tell everyone why there can't be a 3-year La Nina under the standing climate science theory. This should be hilarious.

 

You're the one who brought up alleged secret funding skullduggery.

 

Tsk tsk. Please see my #257.

 

So you can't name something.

LoL it wasn't "my side" calling for an ice age anytime before the next 80,000 years which I already said.

That was your side in the 70's. The same people that said we'd already be underwater by now while the ocean is rising like a cm every 10 years.

 

Crazy stories.. like these... “It is exceptional to have three consecutive years with a la Niña event. Its cooling influence is temporarily slowing the rise in global temperatures —,” Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of WMO, said in a recent report. whoopsie....

So, I suppose you can claim that Petteri isn't a scientist even though he's the president of the world meteorological org, but details, right??

I suppose that when you really start to discuss the catechism you so desperately cling to, even one year of la nina isn't supposed to happen, let alone two, and now three consecutive years... Utterly destructive to the catechism.

Can you describe why, given the models that predicted this couldn't happen should be trusted given how utterly they failed to predict this set of events?