There are plenty of flaws. No one disputes the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is that manmade emissions of CO2 have been the main driver of climate for the last 30 years, and due to that, we face catastrophic consequences. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are showing natural variability was underestimated and climate sensitivity was overestimated and that model predictions of warming have been overestimated. There is plenty of admission from the IPCC that the oceans, clouds, and sun are poorly understood. Without understanding of these very important climate regulators, there can be no unequivocal statement that CO2 is the primary driver. You can keep on saying that this pause was anticipated, but we know no pause was anticipated at this point in time by just looking back a few years at all the predictions that stated global warming should be ROARING back by now.<quoted text>
Anything that is implicit in AGW theory, such as disproving the physics of the greenhouse effect, showing that the forcing is inadequate, showing that CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere, etc etc. One flaw is all it takes.
Trouble is that NO peer reviewed serious studies have been able to disprove AGW theory and more and more studies have confirmed it, leading to a situation where it would almost be easier to disprove gravity. Lots of luck on that.. and let us know when you have something REAL, if you ever do.
But you actually want me to defy the laws of physics and want me to believe that CO2 is taking a break...a pause...and that for now natural variability is in control. But to say that, you are saying that natural variability had little to do with the warming for the last 30 years. If natural variability was underestimated during this pause, it only stands to reason that it was also underestimated during the warming period of the last 30 years. The AGW scientists totally expected at this point in time to be at higher temperatures than now and they are scrambling to explain the “missing heat.” The AGW hypothesis doesn’t live up to the observations or predictions and new peer review papers are showing that.