175 states signing landmark Paris deal on climate change

I called it. Plenty of peer reviewed evidence there in the references and I will defend any of it but you are too lazy to even look. Lol

 

In other words, you have no clue what evidence is or you could list it. There is no evidence and one cannot prove a negative so I expected you to FAIL.

 

I did list it. As clear as a bell. Sucks to be you

 

Computer models and conjecture are not evidence. Provide that evidence you say there are tons of.

 

Already did. Tons of it.

 

In other words you got nothing.

 

That's a logical fallacy. Lol

 

You should realize (but obviously do not) that the entire IPCC process runs contrary to the scientific method ??

 

Oh! Oh! Oh! THIS should be entertaining!!

PLEASE enlighten us as to how it is "contrary to the scientific method"

Waiting to see if we get the same old same old

A) complete misunderstanding of scientific method
b) abysmal ignorance about what a systematic review is
c) cherry picking
d) character assassination
e) The Devil did it!

 

Thankyou. You've made my case.

 

You do realize don't you that the IPCC does no actual science don't you? It is a government report writing Organization that only uses consensus based on a non-transparent process to advise politicians.

 

In other words I nailed it

 

Really? How, exactly?

 

For one, it does no science and is a political body to write reports for politicians.

 

That is not evidence that 'the entire IPCC process runs contrary to the scientific method'.

 

How could it be? There are a lot of scientists involved who represent many different, diverse disciplines.

 

um, nope. BTW, I explained in another thread your link to NASA. So, as hoosier explained, pull out of that the excerpt you feel is your evidence. Cause s0n, I see none as explained in the other thread.

 

the fact that the observations do not reach a conclusion on AGW! That's how. In fact, their own statement agrees with the fifteen year pause in AR5. So, not sure what you feel is in the report that backs AGW.

 

It has nothing to do with the scientific process so the comment would be correct.

 

No, if it has nothing to do with the scientific process (yet another bare assertion), then it cannot 'run contrary' to the scientific method because it has nothing to do with it.

This isn't rocket science, you know.

 

The political process, which the IPCC is, runs counter to the scientific process. Sorry you don't know the difference.

 

But, of course, I do know the difference.

I also know you simply making bare assertions doesn't constitute a substantive argument.

Pity you're blind to that.

 

How does the scientific method deal with new hypotheses such as the assertion that AGW is a threat to humanity ??

 

Sorry you don't understand the IPCC is only a report writing organization for politicians. It only selects papers based on it's politically predetermined conclusion that CO2 drives the climate which is totally anti-scientific method. Sorry you can't tell the difference.

 

No amount of evidence will convince deniers. Their faith can not be shaken with science. The greatest scientific minds in the world have weighed in but it will never be enough. Thankfully the world has moved on without them