cohenite, it is interesting that you use a 2012 paper to show that the latest 2014 research papers are wrong.
You have no answers in relation to Professor Lesack's research.
Nor do you have have answers for the other matters I mentioned that are actually happening, showing climate change. The problem is that you cannot argue against facts.

cohenite, where is your expertise to say that climate change science is wrong. What area do you have a PhD in?

Where is the evidence to say temperatures have not increased in Alaska, that Inuit do not need relocating, that no slumping is taking place,and coastlines are not being eroded etc.

Can you give evidence that temperatures have not been increasing in NZ; remember, a Court case was fought over this matter and the deniers lost, and had to pay costs ( the Conversation).

cohenite, you know whats going on in Antarctica; so could you please tell NASA that they are wrong in the data (not computer modelling) they have compiled in relation to the Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler glaciers. In a past post I have written about the Pine Island glacier.
I'm still wondering how ice melts without warmth, please tell.

Leo, you talk about pseudoscience and provide a newspaper article.
How many temperature records have been broken; Leo, since 1998?
There is a distinct possibility that with an el nino event having a high possibility of happening that record temperatures will occur at the end of the year and into the next. BOM has indicated that there is over a 70% chance of an el nino event happening, and another source says an 80% chance.

Are Courts committing fraud, Leo?

http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

As far as disclosure is concerned, I do not belong to any political Party, I happen to believe what the great majority of climate scientists are saying. I gain no money resources through the stance I take, nor do I seek any. Where possible I seek objective data showing something has actually happened; but deniers still try to suggest that the objective facts are wrong, or obfuscate.
Many who deny climate change are supported by fossil fuel companies or have particular political views; science is different to having a political view.
What's your view cohenite, on some people confusing politics and science?

In reply to your stupid question, ant, the Court acted properly, and gave a decision on the case as presented to it.

The case was badly handled, and NIWA got away with it.

The plaintiff; Climate Science Coalition, obviously did not obtain proper scientific advice for presentation of its case, and lost. It is now seeking information which may enable a fresh approach, but says it is being obstructed by NIWA.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/tag/nz-temperature-records/

You have never produced a link to any science which supports AGW. Even if you wish to believe, contrary to scientific observation, that global warming is taking place there is no basis for you to assert that it is human in origin.
As to the scientific majority, the assertion that 97% of climate scientists support the AGW assertion is a lie, so you do not accept the majority view, you accept a blatant lie about that view.

There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and to assert otherwise is fraudulent, so you are a fraud-backer. Of course, if you refer me to science which shows otherwise, I will discontinue that view.

Leo, your suggesting that New Zealand temperatures were "fraudulently" taken, when you suggest that your denier mates handled the Court case badly. Quite a breathtaking conspiracy theory

For an analysis of the NIWA case see here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122

Dear cohenite,

You seem to manage periods of lucidity and then you post rubbish like your last one and once again it reveals how borderline crackpot you really are. I know for Leo, spindoc and imajulianutter that theirs is a political mantra of faith but you are determined, almost pathologically so, to immerse yourself in the science. So for you to reject even basic physics requires a mindset that is frankly incomprehensible to normal people.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know this has always been a sticking point to you and you are welcome to it but don't go calling what the rest of the world accepts as a physical fact a 'half truth' when it isn't.
2. I said “Humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.” and you say this is highly problematic? What? How on earth can our burning of copious tonnages of fossil fuels not increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. No link to some incestuous, uncredentialed skeptics article can change that physical fact.
3. Finally you argue with a most basic contention; that an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere must have an impact on temperature. That is what the basic physics says will happen yet you claim that some concocted non-correlation breaks that physical law as well.

This is flat earth stuff. The Leo Lanes, spindocs, and imajulainutter may well chant their mantra from their skeptics madrassa but often it is the self appointed leaders who are the most afflicted. Such is the case here.