Except those in the concensus don’t even believe it. That’s why they keep falling back on the “concensus” to defend it.
1 Like
Many times. But not because of a conspiracy driven forum dweller. Scientific change comes by challenging the work of others by developing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and having it peer reviewed.
Do you believe Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? Why?
I’ve linked data in droves in the past, it’s simply ignored. These idiots have no interest in changing their opinion, they just claim consensus and tell you to shut up and some people are stupid enough to buy it.
1 Like
Read this again real slowly. Now find the word consensus. It’s not there. Amazing.
You know another government funded study that had a concensus? Violence in video games and movies causing school shootings. Notice there aren’t so many of the faithful defending that one though. Similar junk science.
Just go down to the basics. Why should I believe them that CO2 is responsible for warming when they cannot show a repetitive cycle of CO2 up, temperature up, CO2 down, temperature down? No one will explain why the data doesn’t line up. No one will explain why there are ZERO scientists skeptical of global warming that are getting a government grant. (There are plenty of scientists out there that don’t buy it) No one will explain why the models are always wrong. No one will explain why out of the dozens of potential causes of climate change, the one they settled in on as the cause is the ONLY one we can figure out how to tax. No one will explain why they’re willing to starve billions by killing fossil fuel use in order to achieve less than 1 tenth of 1 degree of a reduction in warming over the next 100 years. No one will explain why the glaciers melted long prior to our use of fossil fuel use. No one will explain why they have been caught cooking the books. . . You can call me a conspiracy theorist but the truth is I’m not the one believing in the boogeyman. I’m asking real questions and I’m told to shut the hell up because these guys are experts and other experts have peer reviewed them… I can’t have questions answered because I’m not smart enough… that’s a line that con-artists use to silence the opposition. They want the money, point blank and they don’t give a damn how many lies they have to tell to get it. Same as the morons that pushed the Patriot Act to stop the boogeyman. Don’t worry that we’ve had only a few deaths by terrorists in the US in the past 15 years, just shut up and fund Homeland Security and give us your money and don’t worry about your rights. . .
Correct. I hate this crap no matter which side pushes it. 
You know the best part of the “consensus”? It doesn’t distinguish between the people that think humans are 1% responsible for climate change and those that think we’re 100% responsible for it. If you think we MIGHT be having SOME impact, you’re included in their “consensus”. . . It’s been debunked so many times it’s not even funny anymore.
2 Likes
Now what does a conceivable goal of government funding and this have in common? Let me think…
1 Like
Yet people are ridiculed for their faith.
1 Like
Try answering the questions or just admit that you can’t since no such data exists.
How can anyone determine how much if any increase in average temps has actually occurred or to what degree without such data?
Then what are you doing in this thread?
It’s what replaced proving your thesis experimentally repeatedly.
In this case they can’t even get their own models to show warming without cherry picking, manipulating, falsifying the inputs, and excluding any data that doesn’t support their position.
1 Like
I’m trying to learn from forum climate scientists 
Sure buddy. Just like you’re a libertarian too. 
1 Like
Trolling. What else?
I wonder how many of them are thinking “what happened to global warming? We need some of that back!”
1 Like
Do you have information to the contrary? If so, please share it.
(Pragmatic scurries about looking for one private sector funded climate scientists so he can prove that not all are government funded. 
)
You just described “faith.” Do you not understand why that word is generally associated with religion?
When its validity starts to impact taxes, gas prices, and legislation, get back to me. Till then, it won’t be a debate topic of mine in a political forum.
1 Like