Would you care to say exactly what flaws they found with the consensus, and how they went about proving them? Or are you just reposting articles that agree with you? Any chance of a direct link to an actual study? I'm a hopeful, I know.
Last check, 97% of scientists were at a consensus on this.
<snip for sanity>
Look, before you (a newbie) become embroiled in a discussion that has been attempted by more articulate and educated lefties than yourself, I suggest that you spend some time reading ALL of the arguments that have been proffered by the AGW alarmists here in the past, and as a quick scan will yield to you, there have been many attempts, and all have failed.......failed, because on close examination, the entire concept of AGW, and a "consensus" is so severely flawed, as to be ludicrous.
I am a scientist (albeit retired), one set of the entirely useless groups of letters behind my name on my CV, happens to be "FAAC".......just in cast you are not aware, this stands for "Fellow of the American Academy of Science".......therefore I know a bit about the subject. So I'll start with one simple fact:
There is no such thing as a "consensus" in science.........the world was not determined to be spherical because of a majority vote........it was so determined by examining the evidence and establishing repeatable and irrefutable calculations that moved the concept from the area of "theory" into that of established, observable fact.
Although "climate science" is not my discipline, I have read EVERY paper presented at Kyoto, and Copenhagen, as well as all of the releases from the IPCC (what a collection of garbage these are), and have managed to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based on all of the "science" that has been presented in support of the "concept" of AGW (I use the word "concept", because it doesn't even meet the scientific test to be referred to as a "theory").
My conclusion is this:
There is absolutely NO pure unadulterated, unmanipulated data, which can be replicated in accordance with scientific method, and supported by corroborating geological or biological evidence to reinforce the concept (that word again) of AGW.......it simply doesn't pass the test of scientific reality......END OF DISCUSSION. What I did find........is unquestionable evidence of a leftist cabal dedicated to establishing significant control of the world's resources (and economy), and redistributing wealth from industrialized nations to third-world ones, under the guise of capping and controlling carbon dioxide emissions, restricting use of carbon-based fuels,all of which are a natural presence in the planet's ecosystem. Essentially, AGW is a public relations stunt of biblical proportions designed to hoodwink the uneducated and uninitiated into believing that some sort of "global emergency" exists.......it's been attempted before (although not on this scale), and failed as well.
Therefore, it is my renewed suggestion that you aquaint yourself with the arguments presented here in the past, before you bore the hell out of us recycling all the old discredited discussions..........it will be greatly appreciated.
Oh.....and as an aside, as a moderator here, if I catch you using a reference or a link from the website
www.realclimate.org I will toss you out of this forum so fast that you will have trouble standing up for a week (figuratively, of course)........capiche?
doc
