AGW Question

[jc456]

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your *****...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

 

[PK1]

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

 

[jc456]

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

dude, you know that the AR5 report shows fifteen years of no warming right? Say you know this. And because of that position they took, it blows CO2 from being a heat source. you know this right?

 

[PK1]

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

 

[jc456]

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

 

[PK1]

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

dude, you know that the AR5 report shows fifteen years of no warming right? Say you know this. And because of that position they took, it blows CO2 from being a heat source. you know this right?

---
Dude, say it's not true ... that you continue to make a fool of yourself!
You obviously have not read that report, so why pretend you're not stupid?
.

 

[PK1]

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

 

[jc456]

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

 

[PK1]

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"
Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

---
You're the one who can't read ... or think. If you were in my science class. you would sit in a corner with a dunce cap until you make a decent effort.

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

 

[SSDD]

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

So if you have 9000+ peer reviewed scientific publications supporting the A in AGW for just the AR5 report, it should be an easy task to bring just a bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW forward to shut me up and slap me down...and yet, you don't do it...you just keep making claims that we both know you can't deliver on...there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....

 

[jc456]

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"
Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

---
You're the one who can't read ... or think. If you were in my science class. you would sit in a corner with a dunce cap until you make a decent effort.

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

s0n, be careful not trip over your two left feet there. See if the argument is man made GW, then the 15 year period had to have more warming to satisfy the claim. It didn't. Perhaps you should know that less is not more. hmmmmmmmmm you tripping over them there feet yet? CO2 goes up and warming doesn't, then CO2 ain't the factor that is claimed. End of argument, thank you and have a nice day!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

Ask any of them to explain "excess heat" and report back to us

 

[PK1]

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

So if you have 9000+ peer reviewed scientific publications supporting the A in AGW for just the AR5 report, it should be an easy task to bring just a bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW forward to shut me up and slap me down...

---
You're like a broken record, a dumb parrot repeating same learned phrases.
Ya think a parrot can understand calculus, or a little statistics? You're in the same boat. Talking science/math with you is way over your head.

Why don't you read at least the dumb-downed summary for policymakers before referring to the detailed evidence shown/cited in the WG1 report for the IPCC AR5?
Better yet, since you're a science bozo & don't understand scientific evidence if you see it, why don't you cite a real climate scientist or statistician that disputes any of the research cited by 600+ contributing authors across 32 countries who are perpetuating this so-called "AGW hoax"?
.

 

[PK1]

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"
Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

---
You're the one who can't read ... or think. If you were in my science class. you would sit in a corner with a dunce cap until you make a decent effort.

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

s0n, be careful not trip over your two left feet there. See if the argument is man made GW, then the 15 year period had to have more warming to satisfy the claim. It didn't. Perhaps you should know that less is not more. hmmmmmmmmm you tripping over them there feet yet? CO2 goes up and warming doesn't, then CO2 ain't the factor that is claimed. End of argument, thank you and have a nice day!

---
You're a lost cause. Take a few science & math classes, then read the AR5-WG1 material before you waste our time.
.

 

[PK1]

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

Ask any of them to explain "excess heat" and report back to us

---
Why don't you ask the experts?
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

so answer me this, why is it that the only scientists who believe AGW is real are all funded by government money? There is not one scientist that is funded by other sources that agree with that list. NONE!!!

I don't need anymore than that to tell me it is a hoax. Nothing more. Oh, one other thing since you wish to quote the IPCC AR5 report, why is there an agreement with the hiatus in the report? Please answer me that?

---
Why do you continue to express your stupidity? You also think the USA moon landings were hoaxes because all those scientists & engineers were funded by government money?
Wow, it must all be a gov CONSPIRACY! LOL!!

And all those 1,089 expert reviewers of the IPCC AR 5 report from 55 different countries are part of the hoax?


Your anti-science political stance amazes me with your reluctance to learn about reality. Doesn't it hurt your brain to keep your head in the sand continuously? It's really sad to see the intellectual damage your political orientation does to its victims ...
.

Ask any of them to explain "excess heat" and report back to us

---
Why don't you ask the experts?
.

I asked Crick and Old Rocks AND Mammoth. They had no coherent answer.

Again, we did a whole thread on it

Could you follow along?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

And you have yet to produce any evidence.. AR5 is based on models that failed the predictive phase of hypothesis falsification. So what empirical evidence are you basing your belief on? Post it up!

 

[Billy_Bob]

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"
Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

---
You're the one who can't read ... or think. If you were in my science class. you would sit in a corner with a dunce cap until you make a decent effort.

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

s0n, be careful not trip over your two left feet there. See if the argument is man made GW, then the 15 year period had to have more warming to satisfy the claim. It didn't. Perhaps you should know that less is not more. hmmmmmmmmm you tripping over them there feet yet? CO2 goes up and warming doesn't, then CO2 ain't the factor that is claimed. End of argument, thank you and have a nice day!

---
You're a lost cause. Take a few science & math classes, then read the AR5-WG1 material before you waste our time.
.

Your appeals to authority bore me.. You clamor that the evidence is in AR5, YET YOU CAN NOT SHOW US WHERE IT IS.. Then we show you that the document is based on failed models, not empirical evidence, and you ignore it. Then you run right back to claiming the evidence is AR5...

Your running in circles..

 

[Billy_Bob]

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

and that actual observed says no warming for fifteen years. Did you read that piece?

---
What "piece"?
.

ah shit, you're going to make me pull the abstract again. ok, here, obviously reading english isn't one of your skill sets.

excerpt from the report from B-1: third bullet.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

Can you read now?

BTW, at the same time there was an increase in CO2. DOH!!!!!!

Even AR5 disproves the AGW meme with that evidence...

 

[SSDD]

---
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

So if you have 9000+ peer reviewed scientific publications supporting the A in AGW for just the AR5 report, it should be an easy task to bring just a bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW forward to shut me up and slap me down...

---
You're like a broken record, a dumb parrot repeating same learned phrases.
Ya think a parrot can understand calculus, or a little statistics? You're in the same boat. Talking science/math with you is way over your head.

Why don't you read at least the dumb-downed summary for policymakers before referring to the detailed evidence shown/cited in the WG1 report for the IPCC AR5?
Better yet, since you're a science bozo & don't understand scientific evidence if you see it, why don't you cite a real climate scientist or statistician that disputes any of the research cited by 600+ contributing authors across 32 countries who are perpetuating this so-called "AGW hoax"?
.

And talk and talk and talk and talk..talk about being a parrot....you keep claiming all this real data that supports the A in AGW and even point to where it supposedly resides....the problem is that all your wacko warmer buddies have also been pointing to that steaming pile as well and like you, they find that they can't even pull the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified data from it....such is the way of bullshit.