Care to actually link their papers and point out where they disagree about the role of CO2 or are you just wanting to blindly parrot some claims from a denier blog?
Link their papers ? - No I do not care to do that
Do your own god damn homework
There are headings for each group clearly explaining how they disagree about the alarmist catastrophic propaganda
1. SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
2.
SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
3.
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN
4.
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
I'm still waiting for you to pretend some science and put forward a model that better describes observations.
1. I have explained to you many times that climate is a non linear, chaotic and dynamic system, which can not be modeled with any degree of certainty/ reliability . The
failure of existing models shows this to be true.
So why would I put forward a model?
2. I have also explained to you many times that there is no law / commandment which requires submission of an alternative in order to disprove an incorrect hypothesis. A lawyer does not need to prove someone else is guilty, he only needs to show that evidence does not prove his client is guilty. Thankfully in a court of law propaganda is not considered evidence and is not permitted to be presented as evidence.
3. I have also provided many times, alternative theories natural variability, Ozone depletion and / or nonexplosive volcanic activity may be root cause and/ or contribute to observed satellite temp chnages
The surface temperature data set is a mess, incomplete and not suitable for this important experiment
I just did and have many times responded to your stupid question
because that's not how you flat-earthers work.
You have switch from insulting me with the despicable term DENIER to flat-earther. Well I happen to believe the earth is not flat, so you are wrong once again
do you not grow tired of being wrong so often
And yes, 50 or so people (even if they do say what your blogger claims) makes up a fraction of a percent of scientists studying the topic
1. Oh there as many more scientists who do not believe the the alarmist catastrophic propaganda, however they have seen the intimidation and career destroying examples and prefer to keep quite on the issue.
I can not really blame them
2. How about you list 50 scientists who completely, explicitly and publicly support the falsified RCP8.5 scenario as the business as usual prediction as it has been heavily promoted to the world?
You might start with the disgraced Michael Mann and some of the Greenpeace activists masquerading as scientists
After that reprehensible lot you will be hard press to find true scientists who support terrifying children with impossible to achieve scenarios
I think you will be very hard pressed to find 10 true scientists who completely, explicitly and publicly support the falsified RCP8.5 scenario as it has been promoted
Again do you have any idea what happens to traumatized children?
This lie is going to really screw up a whole generation
(and the fact that Soon and Spencer are on that list makes me laugh).
Willie Soon and Roy Spencer has forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know.
They have maintained scientific integrity (unlike Michael Mann) despite being vilified by scientific know nothing ignorant activists
You make them laugh