Why yes, “bro”, and it seems you do not. There IS a consensus in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change, and it DOES mean something. The only alternate proposals have been thoroughly debunked.

You come on here sharing fake links and ignorant, senseless claims, and expect anyone at all to believe you?

There’s a good compilation of well-sourced material on the subject here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

For those who want to learn more about the subject, and why the various myths emacS5 is alluding to are false, I highly recommend this excellent YouTube series by a very thorough and respected science journalist named Peter Hadfield, who has a knack for explaining how science works:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Each video has an extensive bibliography if you’d like to explore the actual literature yourself.

If you don’t want to study the subject, it’s important to recognize that the IPCC’s 2013 statement reads that the scientific consensus is that: “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” No scientific body with national or international standing disagrees with this statement.

Spreading a bunch of conspiracy theories and deliberate disinformation campaigns to confuse and manipulate people is truly despicable.

This too is ignorant and misleading. The scientific community is not filled with alarmists, and no one in it believes the earth is warming “on faith”. It really is, we can measure it. We know an awful lot about how and why, and we know now with great certainty that human emissions are contributing to it.

Many in the scientific community have legitimate concerns about the impact this may have, and there is clear precedent in history for a relatively small swing in global climate breaking the steady state and leading to a feedback loop (chain reaction) where rising temperatures release more carbon, which raises temperatures further, resulting in runaway warming (and when the reverse sometimes happens, cooling). In this case, there’s legitimate fear that we will be the trigger for another period of runaway warming.

However, there is not yet any scientific consensus about whether the warming are causing can or will cause such a period. Just that we are causing the Earth to warm, and that there’s good reason to suspect that at some undetermined threshold, we could cause one. This is why it’s entirely unreasonable to call scientists “alarmists”. They’re raising valid concerns, and many are urging governments and the public to take steps to reduce our impact on the climate, but they are also very clear about what is known and what is not (yet) known.

I looked at your link and have seen it before. It isn’t real. It deliberately misrepresents papers and engages in quote mining to take individual lines out of context. It hasn’t been peer-reviewed or published, because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You’re literally posting a link to some idiot on the internet and ignoring the entire world community of scientists. That’s insane.

Now, have you visited my links?

Maybe, but you know that means nothing. Most of those papers support and are part of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Others appear to attack “alarmism”, a straw man argument of your own making.

I am extremely well-versed on the subject and have clearly read and studied WAY more about it than you. This was evident from your earlier post where you said:

If you knew anything at all about the issue, you’d know that no one disagrees with this observation. But you’d also know that the reason for this is well understood. CO2 levels are only one factor affecting global temperatures. In general, solar irradiance has been the largest factor affecting global temperatures throughout history. Atmospheric particulates and aerosols have an effect as well, and at times have overridden the effects of the others. These days we know pretty well why temperature variations throughout history have occurred.

In fact, if you look at the last 1150 years or so, you’d see that (until recently), CO2 levels were steady, and yet temperature levels varied and generally increased. This is because of increased output from the sun, which grows brighter as it ages. No one in the climate science community disputes this. What matters is that we’ve seen a surge in CO2 levels and a commensurate increase in global temperatures since the mid twentieth century, while solars irradiance has remained largely unchanged (said another way: the overall increase over time is extremely gradual, the recent period of warming is not remotely explained by it).

If you studied the actual science instead of junk propaganda, you’d have known this and saved us both a lot of time. Please do some research before you come back and spout some other long-debunked amateur misunderstanding of basic concepts.