Let's just get one thing straight = YOU are not "the science"
I never said I was. My entire OP in this thread is a series of quotes from the IPCC's AR5
You are a bigoted left wing parrot and blowhard who hates the truth I post.
Despite your choice to call it "parroting", I am not in the least embarrassed to quote mainstream science here and I will continue to do so. I should think it would be embarrassing to try to uphold YOUR position - that all science is bad and that no one should make reference to it. That is the position of an insane person.
I am a liberal democrat but the only reason it's visible here is the frequent charges from deniers that AGW is a hoax of the left.
Where you get the idea that I am a bigot I haven't the faintest idea.
I do hate what you post, but not because it has the slightest inkling of "truth" in it.
The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years
WRONG - the surface of growing urban areas has. The oceans, the atmosphere, and the non-urban land have not warmed at all.
So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?
ZERO.
That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.
Laughable, since the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere
So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?
ZERO.
Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.
Why do you say that? Do you reject the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you reject the effect on pH of dissolving CO2 in water? Do you reject the effect of increased aragonite solubility on carbonate fixing organisms?
That's what the science says.
No, that is what a pathetic excuse of a human parrot endlessly parrots here at the expense of the US taxpayer.
Climate research is being done all over the world. The idea you've put out here over and over again that this is an entirely US issue is quite uninformed. The amount being spent by the US government on climate research is a pittance compared to the amounts spent on military research, on automobile development, on the search for more oil and gas, on a thousand other things that - it could be argued - are of less real worth to the human species at the moment. Here, from an opponent of climate change research (
The Big Winners in the Climate Change Money Game | OilPrice.com), are the numbers for 2011 through 2015.
Total: $2.4811 billion.
Forbes magazine, another opponents of climate change research, says:
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
Now, for comparison purposes, let's look at US government spending lat year:
ACTUAL total expenditures: $3.688 trillion. Climate change research made up 0.006437% of that amount. For every thousand dollars you paid in income taxes, six-tenths of one cent went to climate change research. Yeah... "the expense of the US taxpayer".