[Truth To Power]

You mean the ones who accept the evidence you have been presented with.

The manipulations, fallacies and fabrications, you mean. Not evidence.

13,000 scientists contributed to the IPCC AR6 report.

Most of them only "contributed" in the sense that their work was referenced, and many of them reject the IPCC conclusions.

I'd call that more than a dozen.

How many of them can you name off the top of your head, as you can Hausfather and the dozen or so others who most reliably grift for the CO2 narrative?

[BeesKnee5]

How many of them can you name off the top of your head, as you can Hausfather and the dozen or so others who most reliably grift for the CO2 narrative?

Here's 3000,
https://x.com/i/lists/10530671739613265 ... 4ib0A&s=09

Your turn

[Pants-of-dog]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 326/ac2774

Abstract
The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.

[Truth To Power]

(independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019)

There is only one way to get that much unscientific garbage published in peer-reviewed journals in five years: chant anti-fossil-fuel nonscience non-stop.

[Truth To Power]

Here's 3000,
https://x.com/i/lists/10530671739613265 ... 4ib0A&s=09

Your turn

Off the top of your head?

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol: There is only one way to get that much unscientific garbage published in peer-reviewed journals in four years: chant anti-fossil-fuel nonscience non-stop.

So you agree that most climatologists contradict your claims.

In fact, the vast majority do.

Your insults directed at them and their work are irrelevant.

[BeesKnee5]

Off the top of your head?

If they are not off the top of your head they don't count !



Your whole argument is off the top of your head. Maybe you should look for some supporting evidence.

[Truth To Power]

If they are not off the top of your head they don't count !

My point about Hausfather was that anyone familiar with the issue knows of him off the top of their head purely because he reliably chants the anti-CO2 narrative.

Your whole argument is off the top of your head.

Wrong again. It is based on established science.

Maybe you should look for some supporting evidence.

The supporting evidence for my argument is actual physical events. Look out your window, and describe the evidence for the climate "crisis."

[Pants-of-dog]

Look out your window, and describe the evidence for the climate "crisis."

record amount of smoky days this summer.

Longer and dryer summers. Warmer winters.

Observed events also contradict your claims. Like the vast majority of climatologists.

[Truth To Power]

So you agree that most climatologists contradict your claims.

No, only all the ones who easily get reams of nonscience published in peer-reviewed journals because they reliably chant the anti-fossil-fuel narrative do.

In fact, the vast majority do.

They know how to advance their careers.

[BeesKnee5]

[quote="Truth To Power]
My point about Hausfather was that anyone familiar with the issue knows of him off the top of their head purely because he reliably chants the anti-CO2 narrative[/quote]

Your point is a dud as all the 3000 scientists on that list agree with the evidence that GHG rise is the reason for recent warming.

Your attempt to single out individuals and pretend they have a different view is looking rather pathetic.

Wrong again. It is based on established science

Those whose job it is to apply and test established science disagree with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, only all the ones who easily get reams of nonscience published in peer-reviewed journals because they reliably chant the anti-fossil-fuel narrative do.

They know how to advance their careers.

All you are doing here is agreeing with me, and explaining why I am correct, with the addition of an unverified and unsupported claim that they are all secretly lying.

[Truth To Power]

record amount of smoky days this summer.

But a record low amount just a few years ago. So your "evidence" is in fact nothing but cherry-picked trash. As usual.

Longer and dryer summers. Warmer winters.

That's a "crisis"?? Sounds like a big improvement to me!

Observed events also contradict your claims.

Refuted above.

Like the vast majority of climatologists.

Defined as those who reliably chant anti-CO2 nonscience.

[Pants-of-dog]

But a record low amount just a few years ago. So your "evidence" is in fact nothing but cherry-picked trash. As usual.

Refuted above.

No. That is not how science works.

You are assuming that the exact same simple causal chain works exactly the same way each year. This is inconsistent with observed things like multi year cycles.

Since we know that wildfires naturally have cycles that span several years, it is entirely possible for there to be vastly different amounts of wildfire smoke each year and fir ACC to be causing more wildifres.

That's a "crisis"?? Sounds like a big improvement to me!

Please quote where I said “crisis”.

You asked for evidence of the climate crisis visible from my window. I gave you examples of evidence. These can be evidence of the crisis without being the crisis itself.

Defined as those who reliably chant anti-CO2 nonscience.

Prove they are lying, then.

[Steve_American]

Pants_of_Dog wrote, "Again, feel free to provide a clear example of capitalism and capitalist countries making significant strides towards addressing climate change."

Clear examples? Electric cars and solar panels. Both are being pushed by the free market, and NOT governments.

Communism is pushing fuck all. In fact, some of the worst countries for pollution are the Communist countries you fawn over.

Godstud, he asked for a significant example.

So far all additional renewable energy projects (pretty much everywhere) have totaled less than the increase in energy usage. In fact the use of fossil fuels has continued to increase exponentially, but the doubling times have been increased, which is good.

However, EV and solar panels have not been significant yet. I'm sorry but use of fossil fuels is still increasing.

The actual short history of increases in renewable energy sources proves that the market has not and is not going to act fast enough to keep temps from reaching levels tha will certainly cause the total collapse of civilization.

Also, Godstud, you reject the evidence collected by experts who know more than you do, that there are tipping points that will be tipped before a temp of +2 deg.C has been reached. Many say they will be tipped if 1.5 deg.C is reached.

Therefore, the solutions that you reject out of hand are the only hope of saving civilization by keeping it from collapsing.
.