ant,

I don't know why I need to explain this to you. I don't know why I bother since I now suspect you struggle to follow the simplest of logical processes.
SteeleRedux provided a number of quotes from my past and asserted that they prove I've changed my views. I disagreed and asked him to explain how those quotes demonstrated what he claimed they demonstrated. He replied with utter silence. Why that is so hard for you to follow should be, perhaps, the subject of a whole new thread.

Clearly you have no interest in the pursuit of the truth. You simply chant mantras which cannot be penetrated by any evidence. You claim that the continuous permafrost is melting by refering to a paper by a scientists whose name you forget. I show by using direct quotes that your understanding is utterly wrong and you just continue in your false mantra without trying,even in your inept way, to address the points I raise.

You fall hook line and sinker for a story from a minor news source which I show to be a best misleading. And you you just continue in your false mantra without trying,even in your inept way, to address the points I raise.

You, hilariously, claim to be following the science. Science is the pursuit of truth through evidence. But you don't do that. You adopt a view on the scantiest and often misunderstood evidence and then refuse to listen to or even read ANY contrary evidence. That's not science. That's not truth seeking.

I've done you the courtesy of assuming you were at least honest in your misunderstanding of these things. But I now see I was wrong in that assumption. I won't waste any more time.

mhaze, a quote from you in relation to going into an ice age says it all. The sun has been in a minimal stage for sometime, and so temperatures should have been cooler. The question is what has stopped temperatures becoming cooler?
You have been sprung; mhaze, SteeleRedux has sprung you, and bugsy has stated that you have misrepresented a reference.
Your WUWT contact is wrong.
You cherry pick, do not have any understanding about how one piece of science slots into another.
You appear to agree with the fundamental premise that CO2 and light interact; and then, virtually abandon that view in other posts.
You down play science references that do not fit into your opinion.

You do seem to follow through and check some references, here's something you might find interesting, completely up to date science, google "yedoma"

You set yourself up as an expert saying thousands of climate scientists are wrong.
A recent survey in the US of non specialist climate scientists showed that of those surveyed, the vast majority agreed that man has an impact on the climate.
You say you agree with that; but, what you write does not follow a logical pattern to support that view. Your writings follow the sequence of the embattled Tobacco Industry; where even though the science was proven, deniers continued to push wrong views

" a quote from you in relation to going into an ice age says it all"

Nowhere in any of those quotes did I mention an ice age. Yes it does "say it all". It says that your relationship with facts is rather tenuous.

You really should stop. Even I'm getting embarrassed for you.

mhaze, what you stated was...."Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”

You were certainly wrong, and I did exaggerate the quote that SteeleRedux provided.
Your response was so out of line compared to what has been happening. Deniers have posited the view we are going into an ice age e.g. Maurice Newman.

But, regardless of what you write the ExxonMobil "gate" has pulled the rug from under you. You posit documentation as defence; yet, the evidence far exceeds documentation.

An interesting article of what might have been if ExxonMobil had been upfront about climate change.

Quote:

"More urgently, rapid development of renewables might well have kept half of Delhi’s children — 2.5 million children — from developing irreversible lung damage."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/28/imagine-if-exxon-had-told-the-truth-on-climate-change

And:

"James F. Black, a senior Exxon scientist, warned the company in 1977 that the continued burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline could lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trapped heat could boost global temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit — even higher at the poles. Black and other Exxon scientists warned of dire agricultural effects, skewed rainfall patterns and growing desertification — amazing prescience considering today’s rising seas, increasingly violent and costly storms, severe droughts and heavy flooding."

From:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20151020-editorial-exxons-missed-opportunity-to-address-climate-change.ece

Steel of poor quality corrodes and becomes rusty. Redux of stomach contents when it hits the esophagus and causes nausea is called reflux, so the evolution to the appropriate name of Rusty Reflux was inevitable.
When faced with the truth, and verification of his dishonesty he responds with schoolyard smut:” sit there all day with your head up your backside i “. A loser, sunk in his puerile delusional dishonesty, in his support of climate fraud. He can find no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so resorts to abuse, which is the best a fraud-backer can do.