Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
FriscoHeavy wrote:News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
Boeing778X wrote:Or we could just accept the fact that climate has always changed and we can stop listening to radical leftist narratives on how humans are evil creatures hurting the precious earth and that we need to return to primitive lifestyles to stop the inevitable doom.
Don't get me wrong, it is in our best interest to become more efficient and advanced, and we are. Continue forward.
PanzerPowner wrote:With Bill Nye saying that the Louisiana River floodings were caused by Global Warming will this mean that airports like Haneda International Airport pose a risk to their passengers?
FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
FriscoHeavy wrote:Boeing778X wrote:Or we could just accept the fact that climate has always changed and we can stop listening to radical leftist narratives on how humans are evil creatures hurting the precious earth and that we need to return to primitive lifestyles to stop the inevitable doom.
Don't get me wrong, it is in our best interest to become more efficient and advanced, and we are. Continue forward.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years. I'm all for keeping the Earth and my community clean, free of trash, leaving green spaces and parks for human enjoyment, etc....but the far left want you to believe you are going to permanently ruin the earth by driving your car to the store. The best thing you can do is pick up trash and keep things clean around your community...technology will continue to evolve.
My dad was a Meterologist for 35 years with the U.S. government. He (and most of the people he worked with) agree with FriscoHeavy, and would go further to say there is no such thing as "Global Warming" and that the "Climate is continually in a state of change" - for time it will get warmer, and then it gets colder, and so on and so forth.
PanzerPowner wrote:With Bill Nye saying that the Louisiana River floodings were caused by Global Warming will this mean that airports like Haneda International Airport pose a risk to their passengers?
pvjin wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:Boeing778X wrote:Or we could just accept the fact that climate has always changed and we can stop listening to radical leftist narratives on how humans are evil creatures hurting the precious earth and that we need to return to primitive lifestyles to stop the inevitable doom.
Don't get me wrong, it is in our best interest to become more efficient and advanced, and we are. Continue forward.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years. I'm all for keeping the Earth and my community clean, free of trash, leaving green spaces and parks for human enjoyment, etc....but the far left want you to believe you are going to permanently ruin the earth by driving your car to the store. The best thing you can do is pick up trash and keep things clean around your community...technology will continue to evolve.
Well, one, ten or ten million people driving their car to the store won't destroy the planet, but 7 billion people doing that, buying new stuff and many of them even traveling abroad on board aircraft will. The global economy and western way of life is nowhere near sustainable at the moment, and it's going to get only worse with more and more people in developing world adopting western consumerist habits.
Unless a true green tech revolution gets rid of fossil fuels really soon there will be a major catastrophe. Climate has always changed, but that doesn't mean humans couldn't also cause a climate change. In fact it's absolutely indisputable that human activity has already changed climate as we have cut down forests, drained swamps and so on, I don't see why massive burning of fossil fuels, combined with continuing destruction of natural environments, couldn't further shift the climate.
The size of human population as well as our ability to affect our environment has changed absolutely massively within mere two centuries or so due to industrialization, thus no rational person should think that we wouldn't be capable of ruining the climate. We are.My dad was a Meterologist for 35 years with the U.S. government. He (and most of the people he worked with) agree with FriscoHeavy, and would go further to say there is no such thing as "Global Warming" and that the "Climate is continually in a state of change" - for time it will get warmer, and then it gets colder, and so on and so forth.
And what about human's ability to affect the climate? Would they deny or agree on that? Something being "continually in a state of change" doesn't mean we couldn't affect the change by our own actions. What's next, biologists claiming that the current extinction wave of species has nothing to do with humans because species have gone extinct also without human action?
KaiTak747 wrote:I would be more inclined to believe the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that human activity is contributing to climate change.
superjeff wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
My dad was a Meterologist for 35 years with the U.S. government. He (and most of the people he worked with) agree with FriscoHeavy, and would go further to say there is no such thing as "Global Warming" and that the "Climate is continually in a state of change" - for time it will get warmer, and then it gets colder, and so on and so forth.
KaiTak747 wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
I would be more inclined to believe the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that human activity is contributing to climate change.
Who knows what will happen in the future, the climate is of course constantly changing, but if sea levels continue to rise at the rate they are now, sea levels will be 0.8 to 2 meters higher than they are now by 2100. This will mean that a lot of airports will be underwater, as 43% of the world's population lives within 100km of an ocean or sea. MLE certainly won't exist, as the Maldives will cease to exist.
FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
cougar15 wrote:this thread should move to non-av....
Bald1983 wrote:KaiTak747 wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
I would be more inclined to believe the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that human activity is contributing to climate change.
Who knows what will happen in the future, the climate is of course constantly changing, but if sea levels continue to rise at the rate they are now, sea levels will be 0.8 to 2 meters higher than they are now by 2100. This will mean that a lot of airports will be underwater, as 43% of the world's population lives within 100km of an ocean or sea. MLE certainly won't exist, as the Maldives will cease to exist.
The only thing you said that is valid is "Who knows what will happen in the future. . . " To rise by 2 meters by 2100, the seas would have to be rising at a rate of 2.4 centimeters a year. They are not. I suspect you got your information from "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." It would be better to actually keep an open mind, rather than saying it is a certainty. This concept of consensus in science is one of the most unscientific utterances by the left. There is no such thing as consensus in science. If there were, the sun would still be going around the Earth and the wind would come from a cave.
msycajun wrote:Great to see that A.net has as many armchair climatologists as it does armchair CEOs. Obviously there are variations in temperature and there a weather cycles (El Nino etc.) no one disputes that - one year is hotter, another is cooler. Another thing that is undisputable is that there is a long-term trend that the earth is warming, the sea level is rising, and weather patterns are becoming more extreme, including both drought and floods. Another fact is that these trends are increasing at unseen levels and do not correlate with the usual natural influences of the sun, volcanoes, orbital cycles etc. If a reasonable person looks at all of the evidence and comes to a different conclusion I'd love to know.
The argument that humans can't cause the climate to change is completely bizarre to me. The earth has over 47 people per km2, generating all forms of waste and air pollutants. The land simply cannot keep up.
KrustyTheKlown wrote:Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
KrustyTheKlown wrote:Bald1983 wrote:KaiTak747 wrote:
I would be more inclined to believe the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that human activity is contributing to climate change.
Who knows what will happen in the future, the climate is of course constantly changing, but if sea levels continue to rise at the rate they are now, sea levels will be 0.8 to 2 meters higher than they are now by 2100. This will mean that a lot of airports will be underwater, as 43% of the world's population lives within 100km of an ocean or sea. MLE certainly won't exist, as the Maldives will cease to exist.
The only thing you said that is valid is "Who knows what will happen in the future. . . " To rise by 2 meters by 2100, the seas would have to be rising at a rate of 2.4 centimeters a year. They are not. I suspect you got your information from "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." It would be better to actually keep an open mind, rather than saying it is a certainty. This concept of consensus in science is one of the most unscientific utterances by the left. There is no such thing as consensus in science. If there were, the sun would still be going around the Earth and the wind would come from a cave.
The right's argument against global warming has changed from «there's not scientific consensus that the planet is warming» to «there's not such thing as scientific consensus». First they introduce the concept of «scientific consensus» and then they deny it exist, what's next?
The way science works is proving or disproving theories. from the examples you mention it seems to be that you are thinking of philosophy, which is not a hard science.
Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
coolian2 wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:No, the airports will not be flooding. Louisiana flooded due to an unfortunate rain event, which has occurred all over the world since the beginning of time. Way before that bill nye guy was around. Sadly, the media label/blame any destructive meteorological event on "climate change". News alert folks: destructive events are part of life and have happened since the Earth's beginning. They happened 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 100 Million years ago, etc....and they will happen in the future. Quit blaming everything on "climate change". Climates are continuously evolving and changing and have done so since Earth's beginning, regardless of human activity.
So basically, fuck science?
frmrCapCadet wrote:To stay on topic, what airports are 1, 2, and 3 meters of sea level? A lot of them are. Does anyone have an estimate of raising a runway by 2 meters? Seattle added the better part of 30 meters IIRC to create the platform for the 3rd runway, and the total bill came to about $1 billion. Many airports might not have ready fill available.
FriscoHeavy wrote:[...]Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years.[...]
PanzerPowner wrote:With Bill Nye saying that the Louisiana River floodings were caused by Global Warming will this mean that airports like Haneda International Airport pose a risk to their passengers?
cougar15 wrote:this thread should move to non-av....
Bald1983 wrote:msycajun wrote:Great to see that A.net has as many armchair climatologists as it does armchair CEOs. Obviously there are variations in temperature and there a weather cycles (El Nino etc.) no one disputes that - one year is hotter, another is cooler. Another thing that is undisputable is that there is a long-term trend that the earth is warming, the sea level is rising, and weather patterns are becoming more extreme, including both drought and floods. Another fact is that these trends are increasing at unseen levels and do not correlate with the usual natural influences of the sun, volcanoes, orbital cycles etc. If a reasonable person looks at all of the evidence and comes to a different conclusion I'd love to know.
The argument that humans can't cause the climate to change is completely bizarre to me. The earth has over 47 people per km2, generating all forms of waste and air pollutants. The land simply cannot keep up.
Speaking of armchair climatologists, how are you doing? By the way, one good eruption of a volcano can put more water vapor and C)2 into the air, then all of our activities combined.
pvjin wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:Boeing778X wrote:Or we could just accept the fact that climate has always changed and we can stop listening to radical leftist narratives on how humans are evil creatures hurting the precious earth and that we need to return to primitive lifestyles to stop the inevitable doom.
Don't get me wrong, it is in our best interest to become more efficient and advanced, and we are. Continue forward.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years. I'm all for keeping the Earth and my community clean, free of trash, leaving green spaces and parks for human enjoyment, etc....but the far left want you to believe you are going to permanently ruin the earth by driving your car to the store. The best thing you can do is pick up trash and keep things clean around your community...technology will continue to evolve.
Well, one, ten or ten million people driving their car to the store won't destroy the planet, but 7 billion people doing that, buying new stuff and many of them even traveling abroad on board aircraft will. The global economy and western way of life is nowhere near sustainable at the moment, and it's going to get only worse with more and more people in developing world adopting western consumerist habits.
Unless a true green tech revolution gets rid of fossil fuels really soon there will be a major catastrophe. Climate has always changed, but that doesn't mean humans couldn't also cause a climate change. In fact it's absolutely indisputable that human activity has already changed climate as we have cut down forests, drained swamps and so on, I don't see why massive burning of fossil fuels, combined with continuing destruction of natural environments, couldn't further shift the climate.
The size of human population as well as our ability to affect our environment has changed absolutely massively within mere two centuries or so due to industrialization, thus no rational person should think that we wouldn't be capable of ruining the climate. We are.
Indy wrote:KrustyTheKlown wrote:Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
Ice core data has already broken the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures. At least in the sense that CO2 levels are driving temperature changes. The data clearly shows a dramatic drop in global temperatures before CO2 levels begin to decline. That would be impossible given the current theory. In fact, ice core data disproves the global warming theory, A quick search of Google images should find you the charts of the ice core data with the CO2 and temperature overlay. Of course alarmists will attempt to spin and discredit it because their reputations are on the line. This is what happens when you treat science like a religion.
Boeing778X wrote:pvjin wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself. Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years. I'm all for keeping the Earth and my community clean, free of trash, leaving green spaces and parks for human enjoyment, etc....but the far left want you to believe you are going to permanently ruin the earth by driving your car to the store. The best thing you can do is pick up trash and keep things clean around your community...technology will continue to evolve.
Well, one, ten or ten million people driving their car to the store won't destroy the planet, but 7 billion people doing that, buying new stuff and many of them even traveling abroad on board aircraft will. The global economy and western way of life is nowhere near sustainable at the moment, and it's going to get only worse with more and more people in developing world adopting western consumerist habits.
Unless a true green tech revolution gets rid of fossil fuels really soon there will be a major catastrophe. Climate has always changed, but that doesn't mean humans couldn't also cause a climate change. In fact it's absolutely indisputable that human activity has already changed climate as we have cut down forests, drained swamps and so on, I don't see why massive burning of fossil fuels, combined with continuing destruction of natural environments, couldn't further shift the climate.
The size of human population as well as our ability to affect our environment has changed absolutely massively within mere two centuries or so due to industrialization, thus no rational person should think that we wouldn't be capable of ruining the climate. We are.
Boeing778X wrote:pvjin wrote:FriscoHeavy wrote:Couldn't have said it better myself. Climate has always been changing and always will, no matter what we do. Earth will warm and it will cool, in cycles, just as it has for billions of years. I'm all for keeping the Earth and my community clean, free of trash, leaving green spaces and parks for human enjoyment, etc....but the far left want you to believe you are going to permanently ruin the earth by driving your car to the store. The best thing you can do is pick up trash and keep things clean around your community...technology will continue to evolve.
Well, one, ten or ten million people driving their car to the store won't destroy the planet, but 7 billion people doing that, buying new stuff and many of them even traveling abroad on board aircraft will. The global economy and western way of life is nowhere near sustainable at the moment, and it's going to get only worse with more and more people in developing world adopting western consumerist habits.
Unless a true green tech revolution gets rid of fossil fuels really soon there will be a major catastrophe. Climate has always changed, but that doesn't mean humans couldn't also cause a climate change. In fact it's absolutely indisputable that human activity has already changed climate as we have cut down forests, drained swamps and so on, I don't see why massive burning of fossil fuels, combined with continuing destruction of natural environments, couldn't further shift the climate.
The size of human population as well as our ability to affect our environment has changed absolutely massively within mere two centuries or so due to industrialization, thus no rational person should think that we wouldn't be capable of ruining the climate. We are.
I want everyone to take note of the comment above. Copy and save it on a .txt if you want to.
This is exactly the kind of narrative leftwing Al Gore type socialists see the world. They do not see traditional communist or ex-communist countries as the biggest polluters. They don't see countries with lower qualities of life as polluters. No, they see Western countries, the countries where all the technical innovation, free markets, higher quality of life, as well as the new advances in efficiency involved with manufacturing, travel, industry and energy come from are the biggest polluters. This harmful, delusional way of thinking is often used as a motive to further a political agenda. The doom and gloom of the left has been going on for decades now. Bill Nye, Al Gore, Barack Obama, the EPA and all these political hacks are about as credible as a bomb threat called in by a 6 year old kid.
The most polluted spot on earth is Lake Karachey in Russia, which is so polluted that standing in certain spots will give you a lethal dose of radiation in an hour. That's not a Western country. That's a former communist country.
Aesma wrote:Indy wrote:KrustyTheKlown wrote:Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
Ice core data has already broken the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures. At least in the sense that CO2 levels are driving temperature changes. The data clearly shows a dramatic drop in global temperatures before CO2 levels begin to decline. That would be impossible given the current theory. In fact, ice core data disproves the global warming theory, A quick search of Google images should find you the charts of the ice core data with the CO2 and temperature overlay. Of course alarmists will attempt to spin and discredit it because their reputations are on the line. This is what happens when you treat science like a religion.
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Aesma wrote:Boeing778X wrote:pvjin wrote:
Well, one, ten or ten million people driving their car to the store won't destroy the planet, but 7 billion people doing that, buying new stuff and many of them even traveling abroad on board aircraft will. The global economy and western way of life is nowhere near sustainable at the moment, and it's going to get only worse with more and more people in developing world adopting western consumerist habits.
Unless a true green tech revolution gets rid of fossil fuels really soon there will be a major catastrophe. Climate has always changed, but that doesn't mean humans couldn't also cause a climate change. In fact it's absolutely indisputable that human activity has already changed climate as we have cut down forests, drained swamps and so on, I don't see why massive burning of fossil fuels, combined with continuing destruction of natural environments, couldn't further shift the climate.
The size of human population as well as our ability to affect our environment has changed absolutely massively within mere two centuries or so due to industrialization, thus no rational person should think that we wouldn't be capable of ruining the climate. We are.
I want everyone to take note of the comment above. Copy and save it on a .txt if you want to.
This is exactly the kind of narrative leftwing Al Gore type socialists see the world. They do not see traditional communist or ex-communist countries as the biggest polluters. They don't see countries with lower qualities of life as polluters. No, they see Western countries, the countries where all the technical innovation, free markets, higher quality of life, as well as the new advances in efficiency involved with manufacturing, travel, industry and energy come from are the biggest polluters. This harmful, delusional way of thinking is often used as a motive to further a political agenda. The doom and gloom of the left has been going on for decades now. Bill Nye, Al Gore, Barack Obama, the EPA and all these political hacks are about as credible as a bomb threat called in by a 6 year old kid.
The most polluted spot on earth is Lake Karachey in Russia, which is so polluted that standing in certain spots will give you a lethal dose of radiation in an hour. That's not a Western country. That's a former communist country.
CO2 is not really a pollutant, it's mostly harmless (actually fish whose ears are dissolving might disagree). It doesn't mean it has no effect.
The US is the biggest producer of CO2 per capita, by a very long shot. The US is the only place on the planet where climate denialism is significant. How surprising.
the scientific consensus on climate change
KrustyTheKlown wrote:Bald1983 wrote:KaiTak747 wrote:
I would be more inclined to believe the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that human activity is contributing to climate change.
Who knows what will happen in the future, the climate is of course constantly changing, but if sea levels continue to rise at the rate they are now, sea levels will be 0.8 to 2 meters higher than they are now by 2100. This will mean that a lot of airports will be underwater, as 43% of the world's population lives within 100km of an ocean or sea. MLE certainly won't exist, as the Maldives will cease to exist.
The only thing you said that is valid is "Who knows what will happen in the future. . . " To rise by 2 meters by 2100, the seas would have to be rising at a rate of 2.4 centimeters a year. They are not. I suspect you got your information from "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." It would be better to actually keep an open mind, rather than saying it is a certainty. This concept of consensus in science is one of the most unscientific utterances by the left. There is no such thing as consensus in science. If there were, the sun would still be going around the Earth and the wind would come from a cave.
The right's argument against global warming has changed from «there's not scientific consensus that the planet is warming» to «there's not such thing as scientific consensus». First they introduce the concept of «scientific consensus» and then they deny it exist, what's next?
The way science works is proving or disproving theories. from the examples you mention it seems to be that you are thinking of philosophy, which is not a hard science.
Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
Bald1983 wrote:KrustyTheKlown wrote:Bald1983 wrote:
The only thing you said that is valid is "Who knows what will happen in the future. . . " To rise by 2 meters by 2100, the seas would have to be rising at a rate of 2.4 centimeters a year. They are not. I suspect you got your information from "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." It would be better to actually keep an open mind, rather than saying it is a certainty. This concept of consensus in science is one of the most unscientific utterances by the left. There is no such thing as consensus in science. If there were, the sun would still be going around the Earth and the wind would come from a cave.
The right's argument against global warming has changed from «there's not scientific consensus that the planet is warming» to «there's not such thing as scientific consensus». First they introduce the concept of «scientific consensus» and then they deny it exist, what's next?
The way science works is proving or disproving theories. from the examples you mention it seems to be that you are thinking of philosophy, which is not a hard science.
Do you care to provide us with hard data that disproves the concept of global warming? What about the increases in CO2 levels, there's any data proving that they are not correlated with the consumption of fossil fuels and the increase in global temperature?
Generally, the proponents of the proposition prove the proposition; the skeptics do not have the burden disprove the proposition. However, there are scientists who are skeptics and temperature rise has slowed: http://www.drroyspencer.com/