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

[SSDD]

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.

I see that you don't have an honest bone in your body crick...the challenge before you is to produce some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...can you do it or not?

I never made the claim that there is no empirical data in climate science....they have raw temp data which they then tamper with without mercy and raw sea level data which they then massage beyond recognition...and rain data and drought data and all sorts of data which they then alter without rational scientifically valid reason....there is empirical data there...but none that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...which is what you have been claiming exists for some time now but seem unable to deliver...

 

[Crick]

Still no vote? But you repeat your observation that AR5 contains empirical data. I guess we will have to let it stand on that and take you at your word. That would make the score 5 to 2. No one seems to have come to Frank and Billy's rescue here. Hmmm...

 

[SSDD]

Still no vote? But you repeat your observation that AR5 contains empirical data. I guess we will have to let it stand on that and take you at your word. That would make the score 5 to 2. No one seems to have come to Frank and Billy's rescue here. Hmmm...

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...all that empirical data must be of no more consequence than the number of pens on my desk...which is also observed, measured, quantified data that also doesn't support the A in AGW.

 

[Crick]

Well, SID, the question before us is only whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data. I admit it's a rather silly one. Anyone can simply open the document and see the answer in a few seconds. But Frank and Billy (and he an atmospheric physicist and all) were insisting that not a shred was present. I'm glad to see you didn't run down whatever road that is they've chosen to follow.

However, it's good to see your enthusiasm for the topic in general. And we see you've started your own poll. Good for you. Keep up the good work. As far as this one goes, I think you're done. So be a good little boy and fuck off.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares...........

About 274 Americans will end up finding out about AR-5.


Over 99% of the public doesn't give a rats ass about this shit..........which is why in 2016, global warming has never been more unpopular.

 

[SSDD]

Well, SID, the question before us is only whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data. I admit it's a rather silly one. Anyone can simply open the document and see the answer in a few seconds. But Frank and Billy (and he an atmospheric physicist and all) were insisting that not a shred was present. I'm glad to see you didn't run down whatever road that is they've chosen to follow.

However, it's good to see your enthusiasm for the topic in general. And we see you've started your own poll. Good for you. Keep up the good work. As far as this one goes, I think you're done. So be a good little boy and fuck off.

Interesting that even when directly confronted with your lie...you hang on to it. Very interesting psychology going on there. Wile the physical science basis contains some empirical data (which I never questioned) it contains no...not a shred of observed, measured, quantified data which supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...which was the issue to begin with. Typical of warmers, when you can't deal with the actual questions put to you (which is most questions) you alter the question and argue against the altered argument...much as climate science does.....when the data doesn't agree with the hypothesis...the data is altered rather than the hypothesis.

Pretend that you don't have a terribly flawed character all you like crick...but it is on public display...and damned interesting watching you try to defend it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Can one global warming alarmist please, please show us where anybody cares about this?? Outside science academia and a few internet forums, please show us where anybody is giving a shit?

Im convinced most of you people are hermits. More people would care about bug migrations infringing on their neighborhoods!

 

[jc456]

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.

still waiting, and still you presented nothing. tck tck tck tck the clock is ticking. All we got are crickets.

 

[jc456]

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.

I see that you don't have an honest bone in your body crick...the challenge before you is to produce some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...can you do it or not?

I never made the claim that there is no empirical data in climate science....they have raw temp data which they then tamper with without mercy and raw sea level data which they then massage beyond recognition...and rain data and drought data and all sorts of data which they then alter without rational scientifically valid reason....there is empirical data there...but none that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...which is what you have been claiming exists for some time now but seem unable to deliver...

and everyone can go out to the forum and look at the emails polar bear has been posting. D'oh!!!!!