Does AR5's, "Physical Science Basis" contain empirical data?

[mamooth]

"This chapter assesses the scientific literature on atmospheric and surface observations since AR4 (IPCC, 2007).

Most of which is empirical data.

Reporting what the empirical data is, with the numbers and references, is including the empirical data.

But, if you want to play word games, we can't stop you. Just don't expect anyone to pay attention.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for a link to your supposed empirical data.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Crick]

Ian, I believe I am entitled to post up a poll on whatever topic I choose. If any of you would like to post up a poll on another question, feel free. I will not criticize your choice of topics. I might criticize the wording of your questions ("Do you still beat your wife?"), but the topic is yours to pick.

And thanks for the vote.

 

[westwall]

Still waiting for a link to your supposed empirical data.

www.ipcc.ch

That's not a link to a SPECIFIC piece of empirical data. Are you playing stupid...or are you really stupid?

 

[westwall]

"This chapter assesses the scientific literature on atmospheric and surface observations since AR4 (IPCC, 2007).

Most of which is empirical data.

Reporting what the empirical data is, with the numbers and references, is including the empirical data.

But, if you want to play word games, we can't stop you. Just don't expect anyone to pay attention.

Incorrect. The overwhelming majority is computer model studies. It is amusing that we have been asking for ONE empirical study from you clowns for several days now and you haven't been able to trot out a single one. Pretty sad. Funny though, absolutely hilarious to see you flailing away.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"This chapter assesses the scientific literature on atmospheric and surface observations since AR4 (IPCC, 2007).

Most of which is empirical data.

Reporting what the empirical data is, with the numbers and references, is including the empirical data.

But, if you want to play word games, we can't stop you. Just don't expect anyone to pay attention.

Incorrect. The overwhelming majority is computer model studies. It is amusing that we have been asking for ONE empirical study from you clowns for several days now and you haven't been able to trot out a single one. Pretty sad. Funny though, absolutely hilarious to see you flailing away.

I find it rather funny that crick and mantooth can not produce even the smallest of amount of observed empirical evidence to support their positions, yet I have, on several occasions, posted evidence, which shows nothing at this point can be attributed to man causing any temp rise. Natural variation can be shown to be the total cause, leaving nothing to be attributed to man.

But I digress, cognitive thought is not their forte.

 

[Muhammed]

It's not the empirical evidence that is the problem. it is the manipulations to the evidence after it is collected and the conclusions drawn afterwards that skeptics often disagree with.

If there are a thousand pieces of evidence and you pick ten of them that support your position, and then 'correct' the other 99% to match the favoured 1%, then that is advocacy not science.

It's confirmation bias, which is contrary to the scientific method.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for a link to your supposed empirical data.

www.ipcc.ch

It was you crick who said thatt people who claim that evidence exists somewhere and then just send you off hoping that they will find something are just talking out of their asses....

You keep claiming that the ipcc is chock full of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...and yet, you don't seem to be able to even bring a paragraph of it here....by your own standard crick...you are just talking out of your ass when you provide nothing more than a link hoping that I will go there and find something that would satisfy me....

Clearly you have nothing....why not just admit it rather than continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for a link to your supposed empirical data.

www.ipcc.ch

That's not a link to a SPECIFIC piece of empirical data. Are you playing stupid...or are you really stupid?

He said himself in a previous link that people who who claim that evidence exists somewhere and then just send you off hoping that they will find something are just talking out of their asses...then he does precisely that...classic crick.

 

[Crick]

I think the work of the IPCC has been discussed here sufficiently that any regular participant would be at least passingly familiar with the content of their site.

You've yet to cast a vote here SID. Any particular reason?

 

[SSDD]

I think the work of the IPCC has been discussed here sufficiently that any regular participant would be at least passingly familiar with the content of their site.

You've yet to cast a vote here SID. Any particular reason?

Dodge and weave...Duck and cover.....Hem and haw......Shuck and jive....and on and on and on and yet, not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

And the work of the IPCC has never actually been discussed here crick...you warmers hold the body of work up as "consensus"...you claim that the evidence us skeptics are asking for is in there, but in review, I find very little actual discussion of the material that is there....perhaps we can start an actual discussion...you can begin it by bringing forward just a bit of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis that you claim resides there....

Face it crick...this isn't going away....simply claiming that it is there while not bringing any of it here is bullshit and you and I and everyone else knows it...if it was there, you would slap me down with it every day....you would overwhelm me with it...you would make all us skeptics your bitches with it...you dearly wish it were there so you could do those things on a daily basis...but alas...it isn't there...it isn't anywhere....for all the thousands of billions of dollars spent on climate science...there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Once you alter the empirical data it is no longer real data.. Why cant these idiots see the facts for what they are///Garbage!

 

[westwall]

I think the work of the IPCC has been discussed here sufficiently that any regular participant would be at least passingly familiar with the content of their site.

You've yet to cast a vote here SID. Any particular reason?

Yes, it has. And it has been shown to overwhelmingly be the work of NGO's, non empirical opinion pieces. In other words it is shit. Has always been shit, and will always be shit. And the fact that you are here bleating about how great it is, and STILL unable to present a SINGLE paper based on empirical data reinforces just how full of shit the IPCC, their ridiculous opinion pieces, and YOU are.

 

[westwall]

Once you alter the empirical data it is no longer real data.. Why cant these idiots see the facts for what they are///Garbage!

My guess is because they truly are idiots.

 

[mamooth]

Incorrect. The overwhelming majority is computer model studies.

You've given no evidence for that very peculiar claim. You keep saying it over and over, but chanting your mantra won't make it true.

In contrast, I gave specific links, went through an overview, and explained how most of it was clearly empirical studies. Anyone can go to those links and look at the long list of empirical studies referenced.

It is amusing that we have been asking for ONE empirical study from you clowns for several days now and you haven't been able to trot out a single one. Pretty sad. Funny though, absolutely hilarious to see you flailing away.

Deniers are now doing the equivalent of claiming there are no definitions in the dictionary. It's such an insane claim, the only response is to laugh. They're just an angry mob, enraged over the collapse of their political cult, the one they devoted so many years of their lives to. At this point, further discussion with them is fruitless. Their only remaining purpose is to serve as a warning example to others, of what happens when you let political cult dogma override rationality.

 

[westwall]

Incorrect. The overwhelming majority is computer model studies.

You've given no evidence for that very peculiar claim. You keep saying it over and over, but chanting your mantra won't make it true.

In contrast, I gave specific links, went through an overview, and explained how most of it was clearly empirical studies. Anyone can go to those links and look at the long list of empirical studies referenced.

It is amusing that we have been asking for ONE empirical study from you clowns for several days now and you haven't been able to trot out a single one. Pretty sad. Funny though, absolutely hilarious to see you flailing away.

Deniers are now doing the equivalent of claiming there are no definitions in the dictionary. It's such an insane claim, the only response is to laugh. They're just an angry mob, enraged over the collapse of their political cult, the one they devoted so many years of their lives to. At this point, further discussion with them is fruitless. Their only remaining purpose is to serve as a warning example to others, of what happens when you let political cult dogma override rationality.

On the contrary. Every study you guys post up is a computer model. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. We have shown that repeatedly. Further it was EXTENSIVELY reported that over 60% of the AR5 report was written by NGO's and that there was no actual scientific study in ANY of those. Those are what are known as facts. You present opinion, we present facts.

Learn the difference.

 

[westwall]

Incorrect. The overwhelming majority is computer model studies.

You've given no evidence for that very peculiar claim. You keep saying it over and over, but chanting your mantra won't make it true.

In contrast, I gave specific links, went through an overview, and explained how most of it was clearly empirical studies. Anyone can go to those links and look at the long list of empirical studies referenced.

It is amusing that we have been asking for ONE empirical study from you clowns for several days now and you haven't been able to trot out a single one. Pretty sad. Funny though, absolutely hilarious to see you flailing away.

Deniers are now doing the equivalent of claiming there are no definitions in the dictionary. It's such an insane claim, the only response is to laugh. They're just an angry mob, enraged over the collapse of their political cult, the one they devoted so many years of their lives to. At this point, further discussion with them is fruitless. Their only remaining purpose is to serve as a warning example to others, of what happens when you let political cult dogma override rationality.

On the contrary. Every study you guys post up is a computer model. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. We have shown that repeatedly. Further it was EXTENSIVELY reported that over 60% of the AR5 report was written by NGO's and that there was no actual scientific study in ANY of those. Those are what are known as facts. You present opinion, we present facts.

Learn the difference.

Still waiting for a link to an empirical study. It's been almost 7 days now. C'mon boys, if it were so obvious I would think there would be one by now. Let's GO! Snap to it!

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for you to vote. The vote concerns "The Physical Science Basis". I and three others have already voted that we believe it contains empirical data. Two posters have voted that they believe it contains no empirical data. You have already stated that you believe it contains empirical data. I'm curious why you don't cast a vote. No where in this poll does it even suggest that the presence or absence of empirical data mean anything. You would not be voting that AGW is valid.

Given the title of the work in question, Westie, and the reality of its content and composition, I should think you might see that IT is a study supporting the idea that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced is anthropogenic in nature. Do you have some reason to reject the entire thing? Do you have some reason to reject any of it? If so, why?

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for you to vote. The vote concerns "The Physical Science Basis". I and three others have already voted that we believe it contains empirical data. Two posters have voted that they believe it contains no empirical data. You have already stated that you believe it contains empirical data. I'm curious why you don't cast a vote. No where in this poll does it even suggest that the presence or absence of empirical data mean anything. You would not be voting that AGW is valid.

Given the title of the work in question, Westie, and the reality of its content and composition, I should think you might see that IT is a study supporting the idea that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced is anthropogenic in nature. Do you have some reason to reject the entire thing? Do you have some reason to reject any of it? If so, why?

People aren't really interested in your poll crick...because it is nothing more than squirmy equivocation...I took a minute and posted up a more honest poll...Hell, I even gave you a choice to claim that there is actual observed, measured, quantified evidence there but you just can't find it to bring it forward....you really need to work on your character...yours is wanting.

 

[Crick]

What I see is that you have no interest in actually discussing the content of "The Physical Science Basis" and that, having already admitted that it contains empirical data, you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to find some excuse to avoid casting a vote in opposition what seems to be a denier meme.

The poll has not closed yet. Anyone who wants to cast a vote should do so. It will prevent World War III, keep down the price of Wisconsin cheddar and stop the awful rise of nudity on Danish beaches dead in its tracks. ; - )

Obviously, TPSB contains large amounts of empirical data and Billy Bob and Crusader Frank are outright fools to vote otherwise. But if you want to vote with them, please feel free.