Aiden, Anthony Watts seems to agree with your attitude to the term “acidification”. He says:

“For those hard-core scientists that still want to call adding a small amount of acid to a basic solution “acidifying” the basic solution, and who claim that is the only correct “scientific terminology”, I recommend that you look at and adopt the scientific terminology from titration. That’s the terminology used when actually measuring pH in the lab. In that terminology, when you move towards neutral (pH 7), it’s called “neutralization”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
Your 30% for human contribution, I see, was not a lie, just a ridiculous mistake. You say: “My 30% figure is a simple calculation: the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 level of 280ppm is 70% of the current* figure of 400ppm.” You have no basis to attribute the increase to human emissions. It is difficult to see how this mistake could be honest.
Bit quick with your baseless insults, Aiden, just because you do not like the fact that global warming stopped over 18 years ago, according to a few reliable datasets:
“ the UAH dataset more closely matches the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) dataset, a separate satellite monitoring program, which shows no net warming since Dec. 1996. In the RSS record, the length of the warming pause is now 18 years five months.”
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/
I suppose you rely on the false annual assertions by the fraud promoters of “hottest year yet”, as evidence of a non-existent upward trend. Did you notice it was not true in relation to 2014, or do you ignore the truth?

“ David Rose noted in the Mail On Sunday, that the criteria by which NASA declared “2014 was the hottest year on record” do not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny.
the satellite temperature records tell a very different story from the surface temperature records quoted by NASA. This would suggest – as sceptics have been arguing for some time – that the land surface temperature data sets are untrustworthy.

://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/23/2014-was-not-the-hottest-year-on-record-so-why-did-nasa-claim-it-was/
So what lies do you rely on now to assert global warming, Aiden?

Leo,has been continually writing that climate change scientists commit fraud. When questioned he finally came up with the answer of James Hansen. Quite illogical on the basis of science upholding the view of anthropogenic climate change before James Hansen had gained the ire of deniers.
In trying to rescue Leo; voxUnius came up with Maurice Strong as being the first to begin committing fraud. Maurice Strong was involved with the UN and IPCC; more of a political suggestion than one against the science. voxUnius, also undercut Leo’s assertion that James Hansen had committed fraud by suggesting somebody else.

Leo, when challenged won’t answer questions, he doesn’t give evidence to show that fraud has taken place by scientists.
A circle plus has been created in relation to ExxonMobil; it had begun with investigative journalists writing articles about how the company had been double dealing. A little later it transpires that the Attorney General of New York had also been investigating ExxonMobil in relation to possible criminal action taken by management.

mhaze, had sought from a person from Whats Up With That, (WUWT) who had advised him that the documentation of ExxonMobil should be read which would make it clear no case can be made.
The issue of double dealing had come through Exxon Mobil ’s scientists holding the view that man has an impact on climate; meanwhile, management was funding denier groups such as Heartlands.

The plus, being that an ExxonMobil reference to the funding of denier groups came to my email notifications a couple of days ago ( provided).

voxUnius, has set himself up as an expert on CO2, he made some W/m2 calculations which were slightly above a reference provided by Union of Concerned Scientists.

An interesting article about how temperature is measured; it is an area deniers suggest tampering goes on:

https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Leo, we discovered a few weeks ago how breitbart is not a good source of information in relation to isoprene and how the author of a paper had to repudiate what breitbart had written.
WUWT is not looking good regarding ExxonMobil; their documentation has been read!.

CLIMATE SURPRISES

A bit of history - Sir John Houghton’s role in driving Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change policy during the 1990s.

The late Stephen Schneider (1945-2010), had a crucial influence on him. He was an author for four IPCC assessment reports and core member for two of them.)

When The Royal Society published a commemorative volume of essays in 2010, it included one by Schneider: “Confidence, Consensus and the Uncertainty Cops: Tackling Risk Management in Climate Change.”

At the time, he was struggling (as the IPCC still is) to deal with what he described as the “significant uncertainties” that “bedevil components of the science”, “plague projections of climate change and its consequences”, and challenge the traditional scientific method of directly testing hypotheses (‘normal’ science). His solution: to change ‘the culture of science’ by developing a language that would convey the gravity of the situation “properly” to policy makers.

Schneider introduced the rhetoric of “risk management” – “framing a judgement about acceptable and unacceptable risks” – and pseudo-probability. While he claimed he was “uncomfortable” with this “value judgement” approach - he was even “more uncomfortable ignoring the problems altogether because they don’t fit neatly into our paradigm of ‘objective’ falsifiable research based on already known empirical data.”

Houghton, the IPCC Working Group I leader for the first three assessment reports was, “initially very reluctant to get into the surprises tangle.” Houghton thought public discussion about ‘surprises’ was too speculative and would be abused by the media.”

Houghton: “Aren’t you just a little bit worried that some will take this surprises/abrupt change issue and take it too far?”

Schneider: “I am, John, we have to frame it very carefully. But I am at least equally worried that if we don’t tell the political world the full range of what might happen that could materially affect them, we have not done our jobs fully and are substituting our values on how to take risks for those of society – the right level to decide such questions.”

And so on, and so forth.

The flea again posts his usual rambling baseless nonsense. He says: “Leo,has been continually writing that climate change scientists commit fraud”. That is a lie. I have said that assertion of human caused global warming is fraudulent, where there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. I made no assertion that anyone committed fraud.
The flea has no concept of logic, but uses the word apparently because he thinks it gives credence to his baseless nonsense.
He again uses the term “deniers” despite the fact that the fraud promoters, like the flea, have no science to deny. There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, is there, flea?
The flea says:” more of a political suggestion than one against the science. “. Against what “science”, flea? There is no science to support the fraud. It is purely political. The assertions are made with no science to support them.

Leo

We are witnessing just very ordinary variation in relation to weather events in 2015, or is it more than that?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87092

The Atacama desert in Chile was flooded.

Cyclones Sandra, Patricia and Chapala; very ordinary events?

At present there are huge floods in Great Britian and India coped a good dose as well, but just business as usual?

From reference above:

"Thirty major hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones occurred in the northern hemisphere in 2015; the previous record was 23 (set in 2004). Twenty-five of those storms reached category 4 or 5, well beyond the previous record of 18. "

Another extreme example is 500,000 acres burning in a 24 hour period in Alaska through wild fires in June 2015 .

Prior to the wildfires, the Iditarod dog sled race had to have its start line moved North through no snow and ice being available at the usual start line. The first time that had ever happened.

A rainforest in Washington State which normally has rainfall above 1 meter was hit by a wildfire, in 2015.

It might be possible to suggest that those events, plus others not listed are just normal variation in weather patterns.

It is very easy to suggest these events from 2015 have nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change.

Similar unusual weather events have been happening over the last decade plus; climate scientists tell us that man created climate change is happening.

After the rubbish that the flea has posted about Exxon Mobil, it is worth noting a few facts, particularly as there is no allegation of the breaking of any law, just investigation to try to find a breach. It may be that such a baseless "fishing expedition" is illegal. If so, it would be nice to see court action against the Attorney General for his illegal action.:
“ The advocates of a probe into ExxonMobil are essentially proposing that the company be punished for expressing its opinions. These opinions may be smart or stupid, constructive or destructive, sensible or self-interested. Whatever, they deserve protection. An investigation would, at the least, constitute a form of harassment that would warn other companies to be circumspect in airing their views. Matters could be worse if the government somehow imposes monetary penalties or opens the floodgates to suits by plaintiffs' attorneys, a la the tobacco industry. Significantly, the letter to Attorney General Lynch does not allege any violation of law."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/09/the_war_against_exonnmobil_128669.html
"The only question is whether Exxon’s reprehensible action also broke the law. Which is what environmental, human rights, indigenous and faith groups have asked the Justice Department to investigate. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/22/exxonmobil-new-york-attorney-general-bill-mckibben-editorials-debates/76225446/
A