So argue what is wrong in the science. I've not found any fault with it that argues it's findings are incorrect.
You at least do put up an argument. Those arguments are false, or specious. And fed by blog sites that do not produce any robust science. But at least you do put up an argument.
birdy to a lesser extent.
but the dipstick mike69. All mouth.
You are welcome to question the science. That's everyone's prerogative, including scientists.
But why do you want to shut down that science as an argument? Why do you say that the science cannot be used. It's evidencial. It's rational. It's reasoned. And because you disagree with it you say it should not be put forward as a case to be answered by those who simply want to say it's wrong.
You have argued that particular meteorological sites in Aus were falsely adjusted. We've shown the record of site changes that required those adjustments.
You argued that the global temperature record was falsely adjusted. We showed that the raw data shows more warming than the adjusted data.
You argued the US temperature record was skewed. We explained why their progressive change in when temperatures were measured required that correction.
You argued via Willie Soon that it was all the sun. The IPCC reports and science rebuttals of Willie Soon show that is a nonsense.
You argued it it is all multidecadal ocean cycles. The science assessed those and showed that they contributed to the pause, but do not explain the warming overall.
You argue it's cosmic rays. The science finds no evidence or mechanism for that and plenty of evidence for greenhouse gases as a mechanism and warming consistent with predictions based on greenhouse gas mechanisms.
You argue there is no tropical hot spot. The science explains why instrument issues mask that, why it is not a signature of greenhouse gas warming, but a signature of any warming, and, later, measured it.
We've learnt a lot. But all the answers have been in the science. And you want to reject that science being put forward as the case for greenhouse gas warming? "And as fact you use the very organisations science as fact that we are questioning!"
Sure I do. It's valid science that you have not rebutted.
It's a comprehensive case, made over 110 years of science work and 30 years of intensive international study since it was accepted internationally, in 1988, as a significant risk that it seemed would require large scale changes in our energy and transport systems to address.
So rebut that science if you can. If you cannot rebut it, if all the world's fossil fuel interests cannot muster any science studies that rebut it, if the fossil fuel industries' own scientists told their board that this was a problem, then there is no case against it. Don't simply demand that the science not be put up as the argument for greenhouse gas human warming of the planet.
