It's pretty funny how get up all this fake outrage as if that will make your bullshit any more authoritative. Very amusing. Especially since you KNOW it's bullshit. Jerm, it's not the sun. The climatologists know this. That's why over 97% say that man is responsible along with all the world's science organizations, and common sense which you have none of. CO2 is the earth's most important GHG. I know you don't know what that means. Look it up. Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.
Dang... FC has been on here since 2002, spreading FUD about our entire futures... I almost, almost I'm saying, I came close to.... setting my hair on fire and running in circles in the town square screaming "wake up and pee, the world is on fire!!!"
It does seem FC is a true believer convert of the top down conspiracy hoax and is frustrated with not being able to convert non-believers.
So it's your contention that virtually the entire world's science community is in on some kind of hoax? Really? Because make no mistake, it IS virtually the entire science community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
1. The hoax is the consesus. We have told you that only 41 out of 11000 papers support the consensus. 2. Last year there were 71 papers saying the sun has a signficant part of the warming. That alone is far more than you study pretended existed. 3. Finally you tell us the Sun has taken a breather. Well guess what... there has been no warming for 17 years and 9 months.
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked â like âwhat would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?â â there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested â the processes of the scientific method â because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that donât quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy. But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. In the scientific field of climate studies â which is informed by many different disciplines â the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change â and thatâs nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
Sure pajama boy, you're a good useful idiot. Now run along and have your mommy read you a nice bedtime story, like: