An interesting article which is almost a classic example of the Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt model used first by Big Tobacco and now by Big-Coal.
Credibility = Zero

THe sad part is that some of the hypocrites flying to Paris really think they have a say over climate. What a deluded bunch. Thats what happens when science is replaced by pseudo science and morals are replaced by pseudo morals.

Unfortunately for all of Earthkind, or both the human and non-human inhabitants of this Earth-world I find the much more sobering scenario(s) described and/or predicted on the Nature Bats Last website (and the people and websites that link into it) to be much more realistic re the situation that we are in, or have created for ourselves.

The usual cherry picking, obfuscation and doubt sowing as practiced by all the deniers. A geologist for petes sake. One who doesnt know what facts are.

Why choose 30 years for fact one. Even children know climate change is predicted over a century or more and our records go back at least that far.
Why 30 years? To sow doubt and fool people. Lies not facts.

Fact two is also more of the same. Computer simulations are checked by the WHAT WAS method. They run the model on past climate, of which we have actual measurements and they see if it matches up with what really happened. If it matches we can be pretty confident that its future predictions are reasonably sound. Forget that bit did you or just another lie by omission?

Fact three is just a snide insult at scientists of which you are obviously not one. You are just a geologist. A dirt and oil digger.
Come back and talk to us when you are a climatologist and know what you are talking about.

FACT ONE

“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), have been coordinating the publication of global climate normals at the monthly scale for about 75 years. Member nations of the IMO/WMO were first mandated to compute climate normals for their respective countries for the 1901–30 period, and are required to update these climate normals every 30 years, resulting in the 1931–60 normals and the 1961–90 normals. Since 1956, the WMO has recommended that each member country recompute their 30-year climate normals every 10 years.Although some member countries do not update their climate normals every decade, for ease of comprehension we hereafter refer to the recommended decadally updated 30-year average as the standard WMO climate normal.”

“Although climate normals are simply 30-yr averages, the computation of climate normals is a nontrivial, multifaceted process. The WMO provides member nations with considerable leeway on the methodology employed in computing climate normals, such as quality control, the handling of missing data values, etc.”

Source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.

FACT TWO

"There is another aspect of climate modelling practice that creates complication, namely the fact that today's models have been tuned in various ways. Tuning involves ad hoc adjustment of a model's parameter values or structure in order to improve its performance with respect to observational data, whether at the level of individual processes or at the system level."

"Given the ad hoc nature of the tuning process, it cannot be assumed (without further testing) that the performance of a tuned model with respect to as-yet-unseen data will be similar to its performance with respect to the data to which it is tuned."

This adds..."further difficulty to the task of discerning what the performance of today's climate models up to now indicates about their adequacy for various predictive and explanatory purposes."

Source: Confirmation and Climate Models
The Aristotelian Society
Supplementary Volume LXXXIII
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00179.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00180.x/abstract

Meanwhile I quite like the response to human caused global climate change and environmental destruction featured on this website;
http://www.letterstothefuture.org

There is little doubt that 2015 will be the warmest year on record , and last year had been the previous warmest year. Records of temperature show that for many decades the trend line has been going up, more than 30 years. Fact

Greenland is melting ice from the top of its ice sheet, and being undermined where glaciers meet sea water. Fact

The relationship of CO2 and long wave infrared radiation causing CO2 to take up warmth has been proven. Fact

Glaciers in Mountain Ranges around the world are generally regressing. Fact

While denying climate change is only a couple of decades old, the science of climate change is almost 200 years old beginning with Fourier. Fact

Scientists employed by ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s worked closely with other climate scientists and believed that man was damaging climate stability. Fact

Scientists working for ExxonMobil modelled the break down in Arctic ice. Fact

Oceans generally are exhibiting higher temperatures than they normally exhibit. Fact

Deforestation is part of climate change; there have been a number of droughts in the Amazon Basin in the last decade. Fact

Methane levels in the atmosphere; as with temperature, has been increasing. Fact

When the atmosphere is warmer it is able to hold much more water vapour. Fact

The very foundation stone of climate change has been proven through experimentation from quite simple experiments to exceptionally sophisticated ones set in the natural environment. Physics and Chemistry uphold climate science; as do many other scientific disciplines.
Deniers have no fundamental proven hypothesis they can provide that has been proven.

Those who deny climate change continually regurgitate the same old myths.
Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published, only a handful from climate change skeptics (Powell).

Peak Scientific Agencies support the view of anthropogenic climate change.

NASA has sent a capsule beyond Pluto, they support the view of climate change and can hardly be thought of as having no clues in relation to climate change.

It has been suggested that ExxonMobil have committed the crime of the geological epoch through their failure to support the science provided by their climate scientists. Those who deny climate change are unwittingly supporting ExxonMobil Management in their bid to undermine science.

Notice how the responses of the warming alarmists consist of NOTHING BUT:
a) personal abuse and name-calling?
b) assuming what is in issue and when challenged repeating the assumption?
c) appeal to absent authority all of whom JUST HAPPEN to have a vested interest in the matter much bigger than Big Coal has ever been?

And notice how they used fossil fuels in order to communicate their message?

That's it folks. That's what these morons are calling "science".

All you need to know about the whole belief system is that everyone else who shares it is sharing the same methodology too. This will go down in history as just another chapter in "Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds".

They squark about how temperatures are changing - as if no natural change is legitimate any more without their permission.

Notice how none of them actually ventured to say
a) how they know what the "just right" temperature of the globe is?
b) how they know that the effects of warming would be worse rather than better, and how they worked out the distribution and abundance of species in both scenarios?
c) how they know whether the effects of policy would be net beneficial or net detrimental, how, for whom, when, where, what the discount for futurity is, if not why not; and how they took into account the all-important human evaluations?

In a word,it's bullsh!t.

BS is right JKJ

a) how they know what the "just right" temperature of the globe is?
Fool. There is no "just right" temperature for the globe. The Earth could not care less. It is US, people and all the things we cherish. Homes, beaches, ports, whole cities are at risk. That is why the temperature matters.

b) how they know that the effects of warming would be worse rather than better, and how they worked out the distribution and abundance of species in both scenarios?
Have you not been listening? How is sea level rise "better"? How are swamped cities and homes "better"? How is the spread of diseases like malaria and ross river etc "better"? How is desertification, famine, death "better"?

c) how they know whether the effects of policy would be net beneficial or net detrimental, how, for whom, when, where, what the discount for futurity is, if not why not; and how they took into account the all-important human evaluations?
What is more detrimental? Insurance for humanity's home or some some johnny come lately capitalist ideology of degradation and subjugation. With a good dose of "we just dont care" thrown in for good measure.

"In a word,it's bullsh!t."

A perfect self-description, JKJ.

Note my ad hominem response to your ad hominem rant.

Climate Change fact has gone beyond proof, only fools will deny it is happening. Nature has long been compromised, and tipped into changes that are going to be destructive unless we can claw back the massive amount of pollution going into our environment.

If all Co2 going into our atmosphere was ceased today, some 40 years will pass before a reversal is in motion.

The destruction done by then may mean 90% of AU is a dust bowl.

mikk wrote .."Why choose 30 years for fact one."
Well he didn't. He just mentioned that the definition of climate is "average weather over a 30-year period" which is definitionally a fact. You should reread the article - you might need to wipe the spittle of the screen first.

mikk wrote..."we can be pretty confident that its future predictions are reasonably sound." A mere 2% of models predict a 15yr hiatus. None predict a 20yr hiatus. The models are broken. Of coarse, scientists have myriad reasons for the hiatus which are things that they hadn't modelled correctly. These will be included in future models and will inevitably reduce the predicted warming.

mikk wrote..."a snide insult at scientists of which you are obviously not one. " Geologists aren't scientists! How knew? Climate science requires input from many disciplines, including geologists. For example, to predict temperatures in 2100, they need to know about the likely economic output through to 2100 so they can understand likely emissions. So they need economists. But if an economist (eg Henderson) dares to advise that the economic scenarios used to decide we're all gunna die aren't realistic, then they're told by the likes of mikk that they don't have a say because (all together now) they aren't climate scientists.

ant continues to bang on about the supposed crimes of Exxon. But has he read the actual documents like I suggested? Why not? Exxon are so comfortable that they are in the right here that they haven't even bothered to mount a defence other than to just tell people to read the ALL the documents which the activists are using to make their juvenile claims. Because when you read ALL the documents you see that Exxon did nothing wrong. And that why ant hasn't read them....the committed only want to see that which confirms their commitment.

I suggest 579 you stop displaying your ignorance. You are not doing your religion any favours.

Yes the climate is changing, that is what it does and will continue to do whatever the humans do or don't do. When, and it will come eventually, the next ice age arrives people will be looking at ways to prevent it, and governments will probably use it as an excuse to tax the masses in order to build big heat generators or divert energy from the sun onto the ice fields, or some other hair brained idea.

According to some warmists it's already too late to reverse the trend, the effects of manmade global warming are going to have a negative impact for the next 1000 years. If that's true then nothing we do over the next 25 years is going to help our children or even our great-grand-children.

As recently as 2009 Al Gore and a host of others including Australia's Climate Guru Tim Flannery were predicting the poles could be ice free by 2015 based on the wonderful scientific computer modelling they are still using to predict doom and gloom for the planet 100 years from now. If the modelling has proven anything, its proven it cannot be trusted.

There also seems to be a total lack of faith that human ingenuity, innovation, and survival instinct will produce the necessary technology to address the life demands of the future, just as it has in the past.

To all the Chicken Littles out there, THE WORLD IS NOT COMING TO AN END!

Redistributing the wealth is not going to change the weather patterns.

If you want something genuine to fear, look at what is happening right now in front of your faces in Europe. There is the real man-made issue that threatens our way of life and seriously needs immediate attention.

mikk

You obviously haven't understood the whole debate.

It is not enough to point to a detriment, any detriment, and then squark that the solution is total government power over anything and everything. And a claim of right and power to control all carbon oxidation and reduction reactions in the world is just that. You are a just totalitarian, that is all.

Rationality always means something *in relation to something else*, you fool.

Obviously if you simply disregard any benefit, anything will seem a disaster. And if you simply disregard any cost, anything will seem beneficial.

And that is all the intellectual technique you, and all warmists are using: you need to account for the same quantity on both sides of the equation; either that or go back to kindergarten.

IF the "insurance" you propose cost nothing, then fine.

The problem is, you have made no attempt whatsoever to consider the downsides, or to consider the issue *of value* from other people's point of view, and this fact COMPLETELY INVALIDATES your, and the warmist argument.

Merely having hysterics about slogans is all you've got.

And if you're so worried about the fruits of capitalism, then STOP CONSUMING THEM, including to participate in this discussion, hypocrite.

Brian
Your argument is indeed ad hominem, and this invalidates it.

Mine is not. Still waiting for you to show answer my questions which disprove the case for any climate policy whatsoever,until which, we are both agreed that your argument is irrational.

Warmists
What does it matter to you whether other people share your religious opinions?

Your open-ended unquestioning blind faith in authority, your furious personal abuse of anyone daring to question you, and refusal to engage in the issues of rationality, all prove that what you are doing is religion, not science.

When the next ice age comes we will have drowned in sea water, There is not enough high ground for the worlds population to escape the sea level rise that is happening now.

As it is now we will have 3.0 meters of sea rise before any reversal takes place if Co2 was stopped today.

That is the bare facts, as it stands now.

mhaze, since last writing in relation to ExxonMobil, the situation has become more serious for them. The Attorney General from New York according to Inside Climate News had ExxonMobil under investigation for twelve months, a subpoena to obtain documentation and scientific research has been presented to ExxonMobil.

maze, more than just documentation was provided by the series of articles Inside Climate News presented in relation to ExxonMobil.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-tobacco-strategy-work-against-big-oil?intcid=mod-yml

First sentences from reference:

"According to InsideClimate News, the office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had been investigating ExxonMobil for a year before it issued a recent subpoena for “documents on what Exxon knew about climate change and what it told shareholders and the public.” The subpoena compelled ExxonMobil to hand over scientific research and communications about climate change dating back to 1977. "

Reference to Inside Climate News, the series of articles includes film clips ,quotes, interviews and documentation.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

579, do the maths. The sea level has been increasing at a consistent rate of 2.5mm per year for the past 100 years, including the past 25 you and your warmer friends have been panicking. Those are you people's figures. Thats 2.5 centimetres or 1 inch per decade... 10 - 12 inches in a hundred years.

Silly predictions of 3 - 10 metre sea level rises are just plain scaremongering and you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Sea level rise is not consistent around the world, so your 2.5 cm / decade is after sea level has evened out around the world. America and Canada are experiencing higher sea level because of the Greenland ice melt, which is gaining pace year after year.

Abrupt climate change has happened before and there is no reason for that not to happen again. We are in free-fall now, strong intervention is required, 15 years ago. We are in for one hell of a ride

ConservativeHippie; anything processed by deniers is of doubtful credibility. CSIRO have sea level rise currently at 3.3 ml per year.
Oceans take up 70% of the earth; it takes huge volumes of melt water and much warmth to increase sea level by small increments.

ConservativeHippie, can you guarantee that the recently discovered regression of the huge Greenland glacier Zachary Isstrøm will not have much impact. What about the Jacobshavn glacier, the 5 Pine Island glaciers and Totem glacier; can you provide an absolute guarantee that their breakdown will have no impact on sea level rise? Glaciologists are stating these glaciers have been undermined from underneath through water action.

If you can provide a guarantee, please provide scientific evidence that the professional glaciologists are wrong.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_decades.html

2015 looks like being the warmest year on record in spite of the fact that our sun has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies. (NASA) Hello!

Green advocates waffle on about renewables, when all we need to decarb the economy is clean energy, preferably in forms that are both cheaper or on par with coal and able to provide peak power!

And these probably include very broad scale solar thermal, very local thorium energy that comes in at around half the cost of coal due to the very local nature of the transmission which almost eliminates transmission line losses as well as distribution losses.

And then we could include very local methane manufacture via vey local digestors digesting all our biological waste, then using bladder stored methane to power up ceramic fuel cells that also supply free hot water and on demand domestic power for less than quarter of what we pay now, the savings able to be ploughed into increased discretionary spending and or savings/household debt reduction!

And don't we need some of that now!?

I could talk about clean coal but that would require significant investment in very broad scale very adjacent algae/alternative fuel production along with essential government involvement as the principal investor, and we just don't have pollies that are that pragmatic or knowledgeable, just a whole heap of ones with their eyes fixed on the prize? i.e. Government for its own sake not what you might do with it!

And couldn't some of our industries use some half priced industrial energy, like energy intensive aluminium and iron smelting; and robotized car assembly/manufacture/ship and sub building?

Something not able to be affordably accomplished by part time solutions like wind or solar voltaic!

Simply put, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by decarbing our economy, with solutions that more than halve the cost of industrial energy!

And with that and long overdue real tax reform, send a fair dinkum open for business sign to the high tech industries of the entire world!
Rhrosty.

Excellent article, Michael. Another point in relation to climate change, is that the UN defined it as change in climate which was human-caused. There is no science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable, and as the fraud promoters on OLO have constantly demonstrated, the only basis for assertion of human caused global warming, is dishonesty This has been demonstrated repeatedly by ant, Max Puce, and other fraud supporters.
They have the baseless temerity to use the term “denier”, when they have no science to deny.
They refer to laboratory science which has been demonstrated does not produce the results in nature, or global warming would not have ceased almost 20 years ago, when the “science” supported by the UN showed that the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause global warming.
Will mikk give us a link to science to support his false assertions?

Not human caused , that could be technically right. It is caused by burning fossil fuels, everybody with a head knows that.
There is probably other things that don’t cause climate change. To pick on people don’t cause climate change is probably to narrow. Maybe we could say humans instigated Climate Change, but really coal did it.
It’s not our fault that nature has been compromised to the point of atmospheric change is happening, if it wasn’t for coal and oil this mess would not be happening. So that is the cause of it all not humans.
Why should humans get the blame for everything that goes wrong any way. If it wasn’t for that being there for a start it would not have happened. So don’t blame us.

Leo, ExxonMobil is being investigated in relation to fraud. The Attorney General of New York State has issued a subpoena demanding research and communications that ExxonMobil have been involved in since 1977. Inside Climate News, The Los Angeles Times and Union of Concerned Scientists have provided a series of articles which investigate a range of matters that include interviews, film clips, documentation and quotes.
Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s held a consensus view in relation to climate change.

The very nature of most comments you make Leo; are abusive and provide not a skerrick of scientific evidence. You need to provide data and references when discussing science. Semantics count for nothing.
The numerous experiments showing the relationship between CO2 taking in warmth from infrared radiated long waves has been proven over and over. You deny basic physics and chemistry. The foundation of deniers does not have a scientifically proven fundamental premise on which to base commentary. In any discussion just saying something is wrong is meaningless without any evidence.

You might find this interesting Leo, it is a very recent paper in relation to pingos off the Yamal Peninsula.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0183-leaking-pingos-can-explode-under-the-sea-in-the-arctic-as-well-as-on-land/

https://cage.uit.no/news/methane-feeds-subsea-ice-mounds-off-siberia/

The CIA is apparently involved with your conspiracy as well.
Quote:
"Mankind’s relationship with the natural world is aggravating these problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer."
"
And:
"Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Compromised access to food and water greatly increases the prospect for famine and deadly epidemics."

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2015-speeches-testimony/brennan-remarks-at-csis-global-security-forum-2015

ant

What does it matter to you whether other people share your religious opinions?

Eminent climate scientist Robert Carter pointed out last year, and the situation remains unchanged:
“Within error bounds, Average Global Temperature has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.”
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/10-facts-and-10-myths-about-climate.html

The ant, or flea as he is more appropriately known, never changes his baseless assertion of human caused global warming.
Requested to identify any science which demonstrates any measurable human effect on climate, he comes up with a phenomenon alleged to be caused by global warming. The site to which he refers us says: “ gas eruptions associated with melting permafrost due to global warming”.. There is no reference to human causation of the warming. It is hard to believe that the flea is as stupid as he pretends to be.
He was asked to refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, and he responds with this rubbish, and references to a ridiculous investigation into Exxon Mobil’s knowledge of climate science.
There is no science to show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate. The flea has no basis for his assertions, which are an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable participant in this discussion.

Leo, you use the standard denier tricks of ad hominem comments, obfuscation and diverting.

Deniers do not have a foundation on which to base their comments, physics and chemistry do not support them. Just saying some or other version of "wrong" is meaningless without the scientific experimentation/data/observation to go with it.

Are you not able to understand this sentence Leo?..."The numerous experiments showing the relationship between CO2 taking in warmth from infrared radiated long waves has been proven over and over."
Also, the origin of CO2 can be found through the isotopes displayed.

Using insult Leo is a clear indication that you are out of your depth; can't find anything useful or relevant to say.

JKJ, Religion relies on faith; whereas, science is based on proving a hypothesis. The fundamental hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change has been proven. A number of science disciplines dovetail together and support anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, flea, as pointed out by the climate scientist I quoted above, Robert Carter, “, Average Global Temperature has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.”
So the science you say is repeatedly demonstrated in the laboratory does not work in practice. The climate does not do what the computer models based on that science predict. You understand that, but reject it because of your mental limitations, and your dishonesty, which is the only basis for your fraud promoting. Refer us to some science which has not been proved not to work, or stop wasting everyone’s time with your nonsense.
People are not deniers unless there is something to deny.
You have nothing

The ARM 11 year study was conducted in the environment measuring actual conditions at two locations, Leo. Data was collected on pretty well a daily basis. But, controlled experiments have been conducted in labourites as well; ranging from quite simple to highly sophisticated.

I'm more inclined to believe NASA, NOAA, BOM, andJMA than your Carter.
The trend lines over many decades show an upward trend in temperature. Matters such as volcano eruptions, and a slight dimming of the sun have an impact on climate; despite these factors the trend line of temperature is going up. Aerosols also have a negating impact on temperature; but, where aerosol pollution is high, death rate is high.

Previously, a references to Pavel Serov was provided, his work indicated the tenuous situation in Siberia where pingos can release high levels of methane and C02.

Once again Leo you have regurgitated the comments you usually make with no reference to science. Again you have proven my comment about just providing ad hominem comments.

Prince Charles tells us today that the root cause of terrorism is man-made climate change. What won't the alarmists blame on global warming? If its hot they jump with glee, if its cold its because of climate change, El Nino effect... climate change of course, hurricanes, snow storms, a miniscule increase in the sea level, even the increased ice in Antarctica is proof we are doomed.

But hey, all we need to do is start taxing the air, redistribute the wealth and it will all come right.

Give me a break!

I don't know about anyone else but I am tired of seeing this quote somewhere within almost every thread on OLO - "you use the standard tricks of ad hominem comments, obfuscation and diverting".

Michael Kile wrote 20 November 2015:

* "Fact one: The climate – average weather over a 30-year period – has been in a state of change ever since the planet acquired an atmosphere. Change is what the climate does."

Michael, the climate does change naturally, but global warming is a large, rapid change cased by human action which will be harmful to humans.

* "Fact two: Computer simulations are what-if projections, not what-will predictions based on established and verifiable laws of climate change."

Computer simulations are predictions based on scientific theory. There are no "laws" in science: a theory lasts until evidence contradicts it. It is possible that almost all climate scientists are wrong, and you are right, but that seems unlikely to me.

* "Fact three: There are only two infallible laws of climate science: (i) the squeaky wheel gets the oil; and (ii) the level of high-anxiety over (allegedly) 'dangerous' anthropogenic climate change increases exponentially with the decline in temporal proximity to the next UN climate conference, ceteris paribus."

There are no "laws" in science, everything is open to question, debate and revision. It is unfortunately the case that alarmist predictions tend to get press coverage. The problem is then when we do really have a looming disaster, as we do with human caused global warming, it can tend to be treated as just another scare campaign.

ConservativeHippie, produce some science if you don't like words such as "obfuscation" and "diverting".

Anthropogenic climate change has proven principles in relation to how long wave radiation reacts with CO2.
Those who deny climate change have no such fundamental principle.

I haven't seen what Prince Charles has stated; but the way you have described it certainly appears like overstatement. At any rate, the science of climate change does not hang on what Prince Charles says.
Powell has stated that between 2013 and 2014 there were 24, 000 peer reviewed papers on climate change published with only a handful published by skeptical scientists.
That provides a reason for being served up with much verbiage without reference to science by deniers.

ant

You do understand, don't you, that a scientific proof cannot take the form of relying on appeal to absent authority?

Do you understand that, or not?

JKJ, there are any number of videos showing the reaction of CO2 and long wave radiation. There are scientific papers written about it as well.
Science is not about semantics.
As stated deniers have very few science papers they can refer to, so play semantic games.

Carbon created from compressed biomass as used in fossil fuels has been created over 100+ million years; we use the sequestered carbon and expel it into the atmosphere in a second in comparison to the length of time the carbon had been created. It is not that long ago that sequestering of CO2 was discussed as a means of reducing emissions; at present the opposite process is happening.

The flea uses standard fraud promotion tactics, in refusing to answer any questions, because he has no science to justify his nonsense.
He has no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and rejects the science of a reputable scientist like Robert Carter.
He prefers the science of NASA, and proven liars like NOAA and BOM, and something called JMA, whatever that might be, if it exists.
The 1930s were the hottest years in the US, until the then-NASA scientist, James Hansen, tampered with the temperature record, to make them cooler, and create a false upward trend. He also tampered with later temperature to make it warmer where appropriate for the global warming fraud.

A great cartoon was the one of Gillard asking Tim (Dud Predictions) Flannery why, when she was paying him so much, did Carter always win the climate debate.
Not applicable these days, because none of the climate fraud promoters will debate Carter.They desperately want to avoid , making fools of themselves.

You do not need all those words tomw, to admit that the fraud-promoting scientists are incapable of setting up a computer program to demonstrate what they assert the science to be. Either the science is invalid or the fraud-promoters do not know how to produce a valid computer model. You are almost as bad as the flea in producing pointless verbiage.

JKJ you are talking above the flea’s head. Of course he does not understand.

Leo, not knowing what Agency JMA is says it all, you are critical without knowing what you are critical about ( home goal).
JMA is the abbreviation of the Japanese Meteorological Agency. So, we have the peak Meteorological Agencies of America, Britain, Japan, and Australia with NASA and NOAA showing what is happening with the climate being wrong because of what Carter says.

Making wild accusations about fraud being committed without a shred of evidence doesn't do anything for your credibility, Leo. It is very difficult to swallow the argument that because NASA, NOAA, BOM, JMA and MET do not support what you write they are committing fraud. It is here that Occam"s Razor might be applied.

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil is being investigated in relation to fraud by the Attorney General of New York; a subpoena has been presented seeking documentation and research

Leo, this popped into my email just after my last response.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

The first sentences from the reference:

"When it comes to climate deniers in the halls of Congress, some have suggested that their rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change stems from their financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.
But it turns out that it’s not just members of Congress whose climate doubt may be traced back to corporate influence — a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that over the last 20 years, private funding has had an important influence on the overall polarisation of climate change as a topic in the United States."

Your conspiracy theory comes unstuck when the research of Sociologists underpins climate science through showing how ExxonMobil and Koch Bros funded anti climate science nonsense

The Guardian has just published an article written by a scientist about how the so called "hiatus" does not stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/24/study-drives-a-sixth-nail-in-the-global-warming-pause-myth

The first sentences are:

"Despite the organization and funding behind groups which try to cast doubt about the causes and implications of climate change, the facts have spoken. The world continues to warm and their favorite myths have died.

We know that human-emitted heat-trapping gases warm the planet. In fact, this has been known for well over a century. With modern instruments (like ocean thermometers and satellites among others) we are now measuring the change. With advanced climate models, we can predict the changes. The measurements and the predictions are in excellent agreement, despite what cable news and second-rate skeptical scientists say."

The flea has still failed to produce any reference to science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
The laboratory science on the effect of CO2, which the fraud promoters have been unable to demonstrate in the real world is irrelevant also because human caused CO2 is 3% of atmospheric CO2 against 97% natural CO2.The human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
In an article clarifying the climate fraud:

“Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists’ fashionable “global warming” narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up – where before they looked either flat or declining.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
As to NOAA:
“Temperature Fraud At NOAA
Posted on July 27, 2015by stevengoddard
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
When will the flea face the truth?

ant,

I urge you, yet again, to read the original documents.

I also urge you to look into the nature and funding of ICN. You treat them as some sort of impartial commentator on the facts when, in fact they are a front organisation for the anti-fossil fuel Rockefeller Foundation.

In a year's time you're going to be scratching your head trying towork out why Exxon weren't bought low as you seem to hope. If you read the original documents and see that there is nothing there of the slightest concern legally for Exxon then you'll be less confused.

On the other hand I suspect that, in the ant kingdom, the failure of the persecution of Exxon will be viewed as just more proof of the vast corporate conspiracy to hide the truth about how we're all gunna die of CO2.

Leo, what I wrote was that computer simulations are predictions based on scientific theory and a theory lasts only until evidence contradicts it. There is currently a consensus amongst most climate scientists that global warming is real and has human causes. They could be wrong, but that is unlikely. I hope that makes the situation, as I see it, clear. I don't know how to put it more succinctly.

Leo, Goddard has been repudiated by Judith Curry, Anthony Watts and Politifact in relation to comments accusing NASA of fraud.
Quote: “Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." “

You mentioned breitbart, it is only a few weeks ago that breitbart came unstuck in relation to comments about isoprene. An author of the paper in relation to isoprene rebuffed breitbart’s commentary on the paper.

mhaze, recent news is that the Attorney General of New York had been investigating ExxonMobil for a year and has subsequently sent ExxonMobil a subpoena to provide communications and research.
Independently of the Attorney General, the Los Angeles Times, Union of Concerned Scientists and Inside Climate News have provided interviews, quotes and film clips. Your technique is to continually try to undervalue the evidence being brought forward by separate sources.

Now there is a Sociological paper that has just been published which is not great news for the Koch brothers or ExxonMobil.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

Yes, flea, here is an extract from Judith Curry:
“it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond.”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
You say above: “Quote: “Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." “”
You are either unbelievably stupid, or careless,flea, or you are outright lying. There is insufficient material to work out which, so we need your input as to whether you are a liar or a fool.
You refer us to an article by a non-scientist with a lie in the headline, so perhaps you are incapable of recognising falsehoods. Just further confirmation that you are an unfit person to take part in rational, honest debate.
There is no “consensus” as you assert tomw, and it is clear that he hypothesis has failed empirical observation. If there were a consensus as you mistakenly assert, it would have no scientific significance, it is just empty rhetoric. I hope you are now clear on that, tomw.

OK ant, I get it. You prefer your data filtered by people who will tell you what you want to hear. (UCS? - sheesh).

Yes a Democrat A-G is making headlines by saying he's going after Exxon. A Democrat going after big business - stop the presses! He subpoenaed papers. Wow. Sounds like Exxon have something to hide, doesn't it. Except they gave him everything he wanted and more. Exxon want people to read the papers because, as I keep trying to get you to understand, when you read the source documents rather than the politically filtered stories, you see that there's nothing to see.

But you don't want to know that, do you? So you'll avoid seeing anything that doesn't suit. OK. If you're still around in a year's time, we'll come back to this and see what happened. But its hard to see nothing.

Leo, you suggest I’m lying, here is a tweet from Judith Curry:

https://twitter.com/curryja/status/483006570876243968

Nature bats last; Leo, high temperatures have been a feature of 2015.

Here is an example:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/10/30/cyclone-chapala-strengthens-rapidly-over-record-warm-water-aims-for-highly-unusual-landfall-in-war-torn-yemen/#.VlYTmISO5sM

Another unusual example:

“Sea surface temperatures were as high as 15.8°C or 60.4°F near Svalbard on November 7, 2015, a 13.7°C or 24.7°F anomaly. Let this sink in for a moment. The water used to be close to freezing point near Svalbard around this time of year, and the water now is warmer by as much as 13.7°C or 24.7°F.”

From:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au

Temperatures have been creeping up since 1997-8 as shown by the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/25/climate-change-makes-past-five-year-period-the-warmest-on-record-wmo

A worrying application of the warmth in the Arctic Ocean would appear to be submerged pingos exploding.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0183-leaking-pingos-can-explode-under-the-sea-in-the-arctic-as-well-as-on-land/

mhaze, the lynchpin in relation to ExxonMobil being caught out is the research conducted by their scientists. Unlike at present research was hidden in Journals, as the internet was not available.
Please provide references to scientific papers published in Journals written by ExxonMobil climate scientists in the 70s and 80s.

mhaze, a meno from Exxon scientist Roger Cohen to
Glass dated 18 August 1981 is somewhat of a taster:

“He called it "distinctly possible" that the projected warming trend after 2030 "will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population)."
Cohen continued: "This is because the global ecosystem in 2030 might still be in a transient, headed for much significant effects after time lags perhaps of the order of decades.” “

Quote from a Exxon document, the science that Leo disagrees with:

“Earth reradiates absorbed energy as infrared radiation
-CO2 another molecules absorb part of infrared radiation
- This absorbed energy warms the atmosphere”

As stated a number of times the the origin of CO2 can now be determined.

Inside Climate News has provided a segment of science that shows that Exxon was aware of matters in relation climate change.

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

oh dear ant, this is becoming embarrassing. Please read the full documents, if not to learn more, then at least to avoid looking like an utter dill.

The part of the quote from Cohen which you either dishonestly decided to leave out or, more likely, ICN didn't mention and therefore left you ignorant, goes as follows...

"Whereas I can agree with the statement that our best guess is that observable effects in the year 2030 are likely to be well short of catastrophic, it is distinctly possible that the CPD scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population). " etc

He goes on to say that the effects after 2030 will take decades to manifest themselves and that, either way, it will all be better understood by 2000 when we see more and better data.

So all in all, someone saying it could be this or it could be that but we don't know and will know more later. Also someone trying to ensure that the data put out reflects the uncertainty.

ant, please don't read these links - they'll confuse you with the truth...

http://insideclimatenews.org/documents/catastrophic-effects-letter-1981

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/15/exxonmobils-commitment-to-climate-science/

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

mhaze, what you have referred is all well and good;but, ExxonMobil and Koch brothers have been funding denier groups.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Quote:

"Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists."
Exxon would not have needed to pledge to stop funding a disinformation campaign if they had not been involved in such funding.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VlZhOISO5sM

A number of groups have received funding to create doubt; Koch brothers mainly, but ExxonMobil also involved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

But, this pulls the rug from under you, mhaze.

https://ecowatch.com/2015/11/23/exxon-still-fund-climate-deniers/

Quote:

"“Has Exxon been funding these organizations?” she asked.

“Well, the answer is yes,” Cohen replied. “And I will let those organisations respond for themselves.”"

So we have ExxonMobil scientists giving credence to climate science; and management funding denier groups. The two trends are mutually exclusive.

"what you have referred is all well and good"

Well I'll take that as your acceptance that either you or ICN had totally misrepresented what Cohen had said. Would've be nice if you had actually admitted it though.

But I guess you were too busy trying to change the subject, eh?

So now Exxon is accused of funding people you don't like. Is that illegal? Probably not yet but if the alarmists have their way it will be soon.

They are accused of funding denier and misinformation scientists and organisations. No pejoratives there!

Or to put i another way, they funded research. Bastards!

mhaze, we have gone in a circle; ExxonMobil are being investigated for misleading shareholders and the public in relation to the science of climate change. Senior management has admitted the deception.

The Guardian gives a good account of what has been going on; scientists working for ExxonMobil were praised in the article, ExxonMobil management sought to undermine the work of their scientists and funded denier agencies.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/25/two-faced-exxon-the-misinformation-campaign-against-its-own-scientists

Yale research which sifts through 20 years of ExxonMobil material:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract

mhaze, you try to play down ExxonMobil's actions; yet, they are being investigated by New York authorities for criminal actions. Anthropogenic climate change is deadly for many people, it destroys property and businesses; it is more than just disliking particular groups as you suggest.

What ExxonMobil has been peddling has been characterised as the crime of the geological epoch.

The flea has commented that he technically did not lie. He extracted some words from a tweet of Judith Curry, and presented them without context to mislead us into believing that Judith had debunked Goddard, when in fact, as I showed in the extract from her article in my post above, she did the opposite. What she concluded was:” As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond.”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/

The flea’s dishonest action was at least as bad as lying. Just another demonstration of his complete lack of fitness for the company of decent people. He has the unprincipled temerity to use the term “deniers” again, when he can put up no science to deny. Where is the science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, flea? Without any science, you are promoting a baseless fraud.
The human contribution of CO2 is 3% as against Nature’s 97%. The human effect on climate is trivial, and not measurable.

Leo
It is ExxonMobil that is being investigated in relation to criminal matters. Their scientists were in accord with anthropogenic climate change; management sought the aid of Heartlands and other denier groups to create doubt.

John Tyndall about 150 years ago began to experiment with various gases, and the process has continued since. Climate science has a long history; whereas, spreading doubt is a very new phenomenon.

The same old myths keep getting regurgitated. The myth about a hiatus has been well and truly been debunked just lately.

You keep stating that climate scientists and anybody who believes the science are committing fraud: Leo, yet do not produce a shred of evidence. Meanwhile ExxonMobil is being investigated, and Cohen an executive has admitted to funding denier groups.

Personal attacks keep being made; but no substantial up to date science is provided. Leo you are the master of personal attack; but, you get an F for science.

Yes, flea, no reply to the fact that you are blatantly dishonest other than to call the truth about you “abuse”.
No science, other than laboratory science which the fraud promoters have been unable to apply to the real world. When they said the CO2 content of the atmosphere would increase global warming, the global warming stopped.
In the 20 years since the cessation, the fraud promoters have produced serial lies, from “it is only a pause” to “it never really stopped”
You use the abusive and baseless term “deniers” when referring to truth promoters, in your blatant dishonesty, and admit that there is no science to back your fraudulent assertion, by failing to produce any viable answer. Your attitude is disgraceful.
You serve to remind us that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate

Leo
The eleven year ARM study was conducted in the natural environment, with data collected pretty well on a daily basis. Data was taken at two locations, one in Oklahoma and the other in Alaska. You are completely wrong about experiments only taking place in laboratories.

Ken Cohen from ExxonMobil has admitted to them financing denier groups which undermined the science their own scientists had produced. Now ExxonMobil is being investigated for fraud.

Yes, flea, no reply to the fact that you are blatantly dishonest other than to call the truth about you “abuse”.
No science, other than laboratory science which the fraud promoters have been unable to apply to the real world. When they said the CO2 content of the atmosphere would increase global warming, the global warming stopped. So much for their “science”, the same “science” as you have the temerity to reference; science that does not work outside of the laboratory.
In the 20 years since the cessation, the fraud promoters have produced serial lies, from “it is only a pause” to “the warming never really stopped”
You use the abusive and baseless term “deniers” when referring to truth promoters, in your blatant dishonesty, and admit that there is no science to back your fraudulent assertion, by failing to produce any viable answer. Your attitude is disgraceful. You could not be as stupid as you pretend to be when you write your nonsense.
You serve to remind us that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Exxon had the sense to reject the advice of their scientists when they became fraud promoters, so we can expect they will make short work of any nonsense by way of prosecution for rejection of the climate fraud.

Leo

You make lots of comments about fraud, say science has been rigged;yet, do not give any reference to any science.
The ARM study was highly sophisticated I and have yet to see anything like a critique.
Please provide references that show the ARM study is wrong. It has been peer reviewed.

Once again, it is ExxonMobil that is being investigated for fraud; pretty embarrassing when you say scientists provide fraudulent material; but, it is the company you are supporting that is being investigated.

On your account John Tyndall in the 1850s and Fourier before him were committing fraud.

Climate change denying has only been pushed for about two decades; you do not need to be very smart to work out why that has been the case.

We have peak scientific agencies from a number of nationalities and political ideologies agreeing with the view of anthropogenic climate change; and we have very few climate scientists who are skeptical. Run Occam's Razor over all of that; taking into account that Ken Cohen from ExxonMobil has admitted to funding denier agencies.

You have stated, flea, that I do not back my statements with science. You are lying, or pretending to be stupid. I will again post one of the many items of science which you pretend not to have seen. This is an extract of a review of a peer reviewed paper showing that the warming claimed by the fraud-backers to be human caused is natural:
“Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

You say“On your account John Tyndall in the 1850s and Fourier before him were committing fraud. “
Another lie, I have said no such thing. I have said that anyone asserting human caused global warming when there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate is making a fraudulent statement.. Do you assert that Tyndall or Fourier did that?
Make a clear straightforward statement for once in your life.All they did was make a false assumption that the CO2 in the atmosphere was human caused. The IPCC should have learned from this not to make stupid guesses.

Leo
What I have stated a number of times is that Fourier and Tyndall were developing climate science ;with time more came to be understood at the beginning of the 19th century. Svante Arrhenius began to develop a view on what later has been termed green house gases. He must have been committing fraud; Leo, even though he was the recipient of a Noble Prize. Your logic around Tyndall and Fourier is somewhat interesting.
You say that climate scientists are committing fraud; that must then include early practitioners.
Svante Arrhenius actually made predictions about how much influence CO2 would have on the atmosphere. This is surely fraud in your view Leo; he developed the physics of climate change further than Tyndall.

Science keeps building Leo, your reference is old, goes back to 2009.

Many researches are saying that there has been no such concept as pause or hiatus. The referenced article is written by a climate scientist (2015).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/18/in-a-blind-test-economists-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause

ExxonMobil scientists had a consensus view of climate change. The ExxonMobil scientists must have been committing fraud in the 1970s and 1980s Leo by your logic. Yet, it is ExxonMobil management that is being investigated.

It is not logical to claim climate scientists are promoting fraud while their pioneers were not.

The flea says:“your reference is old, goes back to 2009”. Yes, flea and it is still valid, current science. The flea refers to science upon which he relies:“John Tyndall in the 1850s and Fourier before him”. Yes, when fed into current computer models it gives invalid results, like predicting warming on the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, when the empirical result is that global warming stopped 18 years ago. Is your science too old, flea, or are the scientists feeding it into their computers incompetent?

Here is an extract from the flea’s nonsense which is an outright lie:
”Anthropogenic climate change is deadly for many people, it destroys property and businesses” No reference to any facts to justify this statement, just his usual pretence of stupidity, in making false statements. He cannot be stupid enough to believe this.
You have acknowledged that there is no “anthropogenic” climate change, flea, by your failure to reference any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You are a pathetic example of a fraud-backer. No wonder the fraud promoters are losing.
The flea refers to an ARM study but gives no link to it. If it exists, I suppose with his record, he does not want to expose his sources to scrutiny

Leo

My computer has google on it, it is very easy to find references for the ARM study.
You persist with the myth of there not having been any warming since 1998; 2014 was warmer and 2015 has a 95%+ chance of reaching 1C above pre industrial levels.
The trend line from when temperature was first systematically recorded has continued to go up.

You still have not answered the question as to when fraud began, Leo. Arrhenius made predictions at the beginning of the 19 century, was he committing fraud?

When exactly did the fraud you have pushed for a considerable time commence?

Were scientists employed by ExxonMobil committing fraud, Leo?

You offer one reference that you say proves climate change views held by scientists is wrong.

Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published, only a handful from skeptics ( per Powell). Your one reference doesn't stack up very well.

Have the executives of ExxonMobil committed fraud: Leo, Ken Cohen has admitted to what the company is being investigated for.

You keep suggesting lies have been told, and fraud perpetrated but do not offer any evidence.
You won't define when the fraud commenced; you have been caught out in a logical conundrum of your own making.

So, flea, you have no facts or science, in relation to your lie, “Anthropogenic climate change is deadly for many people, it destroys property and businesses”.
Not surprising, it is difficult to come up with facts to verify lies.
You say:“My computer has google on it, it is very easy to find references for the ARM study”
I copied and pasted your description “eleven year ARM study” into google with no result linking to your supposed study.. Why will you not give us the link you say you have, instead of making stupid, misleading remarks.Or are you are simply lying again?
In standard fraud-promoter mode, you refuse to answer pertinent questions, and respond with stupid irrelevant questions. You are the one making the baseless assertions, and need to respond.
I am merely pointing out your baseless position, and making appropriate enquiry of you. You have an irritating way of conveying that you have no sensible, or factual answers, flea.

Geoff of Perth. If runner has problems, they are minimal compared to yours.
You seriously put forward the ridiculous article about the “hiatus” by a closed- minded climate fraud promoter, who has the temerity to refer to those who have a sensible, informed outlook on climate as “contrarians”.

You are in a bad way, Geoff. Global warming ceased in 1997, at the very time when the fraud promoters said it would continue, and be caused by the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. The science on CO2 in the atmosphere needs rethinking. Murry Salby is most likely right. He says that the temperature governs the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is not the CO2 which governs the temperature. We know that warming precedes the increase in CO2, so it makes sense. The agw fraud promoters have to suppress sense, at all costs, so Salby was severely punished by Macquarie University, which is infested by fraud promoters.
How about having a bit of sense, Geoff? Otherwise you might go over the edge.

A reference to the ARM study, the paper has been hidden behind a pay wall in Nature Journal.

https://www.arm.gov/news/features/post/32853

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The first sense reads:

"Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. "

Leo, you keep writing about fraud, so questioning is relevant. We both know that you have got yourself in a mess in relation to not being able to answer when the fraud began.

This year a few thousand people died from almost hot bolb conditions, in a number of countries, Hospitals were overrun in Pakistan, India, Cyprus, the Middle East and Japan .
In 2003 20,000 plus people died through being overwhelmed by heat.
It has only been over the last few decades that cars and houses have been washed away by floods on too regular a basis; people have drowned.
The Atacama desert in Chile was flooded earlier in the year with the loss of life at a mining community.

So Leo, scientists have witnessed the impact of radiated infrared in the environment; their peers from ExxonMobil have been proven right. Exxon management has been caught out creating doubt.

Answer questions about the fraud you are saying has happened. You are evading the questions.

Obfuscation and diversion do not work, Leo.

You say, flea: "Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. "
So, if this is “the first time”, then up to now, they have relied on laboratory science, and their results were always so very wrong.
You say, flea:” You have got yourself in a mess in relation to not being able to answer when the fraud began.” What an idiotic statement, flea, it is the current perpetration of the fraud which is of concern. We cannot do much about its origin, when Hansen’s organisers selected the hottest day predicted over the selected period during which he was to make his inaugural address, to the senate committee,and overnight they left open the windows of the venue for the address, with the air conditioning turned off.
Next day, the audience sweltered, and this enhanced the effect of Hansen’s disingenuous address on the dangers of global warming.
“ June 23, 1988, in the sweltering heat, Hansen told a U.S. Senate committee he was 99 percent certain that the year’s record temperatures were not the result of natural variation. It was the first time a lead scientist drew a connection between human activities, the growing concentration of atmospheric pollutants, and a warming climate”
http://grist.org/article/a-climate-hero-the-early-years/

So began the climate fraud, the baseless misrepresentation of the human effect on climate, by the disingenuous Hansen.
You say, flea:” Obfuscation and diversion do not work””
Yes you have shown that, you have also demonstrated that stupid assertions, and your lying and dishonest manipulation of information do not work, but you seem unable to give any of it up.

Leo
You still haven't answered the questions I asked.
Whether the ARM study was the first to take data from the natural environment or not is not much of an argument you put, Leo. Data obtained is important; a little unpalatable when it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Leo, why would ExxonMobil make pledges to shareholders about not funding denier groups if they had not been conducting such an activity.

"Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

So the past history of ExxonMobil management is catching up on them.

Ken Cohen, a current executive of ExxonMobi has praised the ExxonMobil scientists who were working in the 1970s and 1980s; they held a consensus view on climate change. On that basis; Leo, by your logic, they must have been committing fraud.

It is very convenient to say fraud began with James Hansen; yet, ExxonMobil scientists were having papers published indicating a consensus view on anthropogenic climate change.

James Hansen has not been investigated for criminal actions; whereas, management fron ExxonMobil is being investigated.

I do not know what questions you mean flea. Do you consider baseless assertion of human caused global warming to be fraud? There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so the assertion is baseless. You put forward some imagined study by ARM, which you cannot verify. If there were any such science, the IPCC would trumpet it from the rooftops, instead of their pathetic “95% certain”, when they are aware that the 3% of CO2 comprising human emissions is trivial, and its effect is not measurable.
That is clear enough, and does not require stupid questions from you. Anyone who has made the baseless assertion has made a fraudulent statement. Even you can understand that, despite your mistaken grasp of logic.
Exxon have supported climate truth promoters (called "deniers",by the fraud promoters) and the investigations are ridiculous, but consistent with the mischief the fraud promoters are capable of generating. If it comes to a trial, Exxon will have the opportunity to see that the truth prevails.
As mhase pointed out, you have no grasp of the situation, flea, and as usual, are talking baseless nonsense.

Leo, I gave you a references to what you say is an imagined ARM study. Embarrassing isn't it when an 11 year old study shows how wrong you are?

The more you write Leo, the more it is apparent that Physics and Chemistry are not your forte.

Management of ExxonMobil supported denier groups; but the climate scientists employed by ExxonMobil in the 70s and 80s believed in the science.

Katherine Hayhoe, a religious climate scientist had one of ExxonMobil's scientists as a mentor; she has praised her mentor profusely. Katherine Hayhoe believes strongly in the consensus view of climate change as does her mentor. Your logic would suggest that Katherine and her mentor have committed fraud.

Please keep responding Leo, you are hitting home goal after home goal.

The following expands on just how nonsensical the flea’s comments on Exxon Mobil are, and provides comment on his source of misinformation:

“McKibben, for instance, wrote, "Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming."

But if you read the documents, it will become clear the opposite is true.

Reading the documents shows that these allegations are based on deliberately cherry-picked statements attributed to various Exxon-Mobil employees to wrongly suggest definitive conclusions were reached decades ago by company researchers. These statements were taken completely out of context and ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global understanding.

What these documents actually demonstrate is a robust culture of scientific discourse on the causes and risks of climate change that took place at ExxonMobil in the 1970s and '80s and continues today. They point to corporate efforts to fill the substantial gaps in knowledge that existed during the earliest years of climate change research.

They also help explain why ExxonMobil would work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading universities like MIT and Stanford on ways to expand climate science knowledge.

So read them. I am guessing that InsideClimate News is counting on readers not doing that and instead just trusting its "reporting" and "analysis.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/

This clarifies why the flea refuses to read the documents. He hates the truth. It confuses him, when his basic purpose is to promote climate fraud.

Leo
Independently of Inside Climate News the Attorney General's Department of New York was investigating ExxonMobil. The Inside Climate News series of articles includes quotes, interviews and film clips of comments from ExxonMobil scientists. Separate to ICN, the Los Angeles Times and Union of Concerned Scientists also investigated ExxonMobil.

Can you provide an explanation as to why management felt compelled to pledge not funding denier groups in 2007?

Please don't insult people by providing Watts as a reference. He is not a scientist and has been caught out with wrong information. In the past he has suggested that Arctic sea ice extent was increasing at a high rate. Neven, I understand is a climate scientist, he has presented a number of comments in relation to Watts:

http://neven1.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a0133f03a1e37970b0133f03a1e3f970b/search?filter.q=Watts

You cannot be as idiotic as you pretend to be, flea. The article was not by Watts, who in any event runs a respected web-site. Inside Climate News has shown itself to be misinforming its readers, if you read the documents which they are misrepresenting.The article is by Ken CohenVice President Public and Government AffairsExxon Mobil Corporation.
You still have not read the documents, but continue to make uninformed stupid remarks about them.
The link you supply to Neven says nothing about Watts, but I suppose you merely intended to waste my time

The flea has the temerity to question my education while he demonstrates continually that he is an ignoramus. I was a top student in English, mathematics and physics, mid range in chemistry. I also learned the rules of debate, of which the flea has demonstrated he is as clueless, as he is of logic. One rule, which I have copied from a debating society page, which the flea should acknowledge, is:

“the side bearing the onus of persuasion must discharge that burden or lose. Except when the negative introduces a Counter-Plan, the onus of persuasion lies upon the affirmative team. “
http://debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf
The onus is on the flea in relation to his support of the assertion that humans cause global warming. He has to explain how, when 97% of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by nature, the trivial contribution by humans is the cause. If CO2 is the cause of the warming, he has to explain how, when the computer models say that the content of CO2 will cause global warming to continue, the warming stopped, over 18 years ago. There are serious problems with the science of the effect of the atmospheric CO2 content.
Asking stupid questions and repeating scurrilous nonsense about Exxon-Mobil will not discharge the onus, and that is all that the flea has contributed.

You cannot be as idiotic as you pretend to be, flea. The article was not by Watts, who in any event runs a respected web-site. Inside Climate News has shown itself to be misinforming its readers, if you read the documents which they are misrepresenting.The article is by Ken CohenVice President Public and Government AffairsExxon Mobil Corporation.
You still have not read the documents, but continue to make uninformed stupid remarks about them.
The link you supply to Neven says nothing critical ofWatts, but I suppose you merely intended to waste my time viewing it.

The flea has the temerity to question my education while he demonstrates continually that he is an ignoramus. I was a top student in English, mathematics and physics, mid range in chemistry. I also learned the rules of debate, of which the flea has demonstrated he is as clueless, as he is of logic. One rule, which I have copied from a debating society page, which the flea should acknowledge, is:

“the side bearing the onus of persuasion must discharge that burden or lose. Except when the negative introduces a Counter-Plan, the onus of persuasion lies upon the affirmative team. “
http://debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf
The onus is on the flea in relation to his support of the assertion that humans cause global warming. He has to explain how, when 97% of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by nature, the trivial contribution by humans is the cause. If CO2 is the cause of the warming, he has to explain how, when the computer models say that the content of CO2 will cause global warming to continue, it stops. There are serious problems with the science of the effect of the atmospheric CO2 content.
Asking stupid questions and repeating scurrilous nonsense about Exxon-Mobil will not discharge the onus, and that is all that the flea has contributed.

Leo Lane,
Where did you get the idea that humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2? The data I've seen shows it to be nearly an order of magnitude more.

Is it that you're referring to gross emissions? Nature's a net absorber of CO2, so does it matter if its gross emissions are far higher than those from human activity? You must really be clutching at straws if you think that means humans are any less to blame for global warming.

As for the global warming stopping, firstly you should note that it's resumed. Secondly the energy has to go somewhere, and it would've showed up on the satellite measurements if it were going back out into space. So the obvious answer is that the extra heat was going into the oceans.

Leo
Scientists might debate their findings with one another in relation to research, but you do not debate matters such as CO2 and long wave radiated infrared interaction is right or wrong. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether gravity is true or false, or about whether vegetation goes through a process of photosynthesis.

One of the references I gave you states:

"The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Feb. 25 in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2."

The research was conducted in the natural environment, not in a laboratory as you have previously intimated (ARM Research).

You need to come up with science to debunk the ARM research, Leo; just aggressive sophistry does nothing.

Bringing up debating rules is purely a technique to draw away from you continually asserting the completely illogical comments that climate scientists commit fraud, and the double dealing ExxonMobil have been alleged to have committed in the 1980s.

ExxonMobil had been investigated by the Attorney General for 12 months prior to sending a subpoena to management. To take it to a more formal approach must mean that the Attorney General feels there may be a prima facie case.

“Where did you get the idea that humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2? The data I've seen shows it to be nearly an order of magnitude more.” Why, Aiden, where did you dredge up the data to which you refer? A similar place to where you obtained the “acidification of oceans” misinformation?
Anthony Watts worked it out from a table supplied by the EPA

"EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources"
Anthony Watts / July 29, 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/
Of course, this is not the only source, and there are minor variations in the figure, but we know you carefully avoid information unles it emanates from fraud promoters.

Leo, if you are going to provide references about science you need to employ a reliable scource.

Here Watts is taken apart; as suggested before sophistry is meaningless when discussing science.

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/dissecting-anthony-watts-pathetic-climate-disinformation-on-pbs/

Here is an exceptionally interesting quote in relation to Watt's motivation in pushing denial of climate change and it is not the science.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."

As usual, flea, you did not read the relevant document, showing Watts’ meticulous calculations, and nevertheless, refer us to a baseless criticism of Watts, by some fraud promoter who refers us to Skeptical Science, as the basis of his fraud promotion comments.
You have already established yourself as a liar, and manipulator of information in order to misinform. You now demonstrate that you are an ignoramus, and determined to remain that way, by refusing to read the material relevant to your consequently baseless comments.
Watts sets out, in detail, his source of information, and his calculations, which stand up, regardless of the baseless criticism of Watts by the fraud promoter to whom you refer us.You find it mandatory, because of your nature, to make baseless ad hom comments, but they are of no effect.
If you find anything incorrect in Watts’ work, let us know. Otherwise we have verified that the human contribution of CO2 is trivial. There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
The assertion of human caused global warming is fraudulent.

Leo, I suggest you have another look at the page you hyperlinked to: its author has admitted he got it totally wrong. He had mistaken the annual antropogenic CO2 emissions for the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2.

There are hundreds (probably thousands) of websites that say the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen to 400ppm from its preindustrial level of 280ppm. If you're really too lazy to google it yourself, I suggest you start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere which not only explains it but has links to plenty of other websites on the topic.

And ocean acidification is still a serious problem, even though the oceans are (and always will be) less acidic than pure water. Just because you're too arrogant and stupid* to accept that your rudimentary understanding of chemistry is insufficient to comprehend the meaning of "acidification" doesn't mean anything that contradicts it is "misinformation".

* By which I don't mean of low cognitive ability; I mean you're deliberatly stupid: you keep yourself ignorant because you can't bear to discover you're wrong. You carefully avoid information unles it emanates from fraud promoters, and then you falsely accuse me of doing so.

Leo
You have no idea do you, about the significance of the quote from Watts ... he is involved in undermining science due to his political views.

It is amusing that you came up with me not sticking to debating rules; proven hypotheses are not debated ( CO2 and long wave radiated infrared reaction).
But, in debate I would imagine that abuse does not conform to rules.
Abuse is a huge flag saying whoever uses it has no points to make.

Methane is another trace gas that takes up even less volume than CO2; during pre Industrial times the amount in the atmosphere was around 780 ppb, it is now over 1,800 ppb and has spiked up to 2,500 ppb. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.

Would you willingly go into a small space for a number of hours where the percentage of methane is 3%? After all, there is already methane in the atmosphere and so should not cause any problem? Which then leads to the question, is there an unsafe level of CO2 that is dangerous to flora and fauna? You have set yourself up as an expert on CO2 Leo, so should be able to answer. Abusive comments about silly questions will not suffice.

You complain about continually being asked silly questions; Leo, it is through questioning we learn. A strange comment when discussing science; science is all about continually asking questions. It is not political ideology as characterised by Watts's comment.

Your hubris is showing when you claim to know better that the ARM research which was conducted over 11 years in the natural environment at two locations ( quotes and references previously provided).

ALL I WANT FOR XMAS

Instead of more and more dodgy ex post facto 'anthropogenic attribution' statements, perhaps one day climate scientists might give the public some genuine predictions capable of empirical verification in our lifetime.

Did climate models predict a thickening of Antarctic sea-ice over the past couple of decades? Or the abnormal warming of the North Pacific? Etc

"It is widely accepted that the warmth observed in 2014 – 2015 and probably in 2016 is not due to a sudden increase in anthropogenic global warming but due to short-term natural effects such as the El Nino and the so-called “Pacific blob.” Without these natural effects (also known as weather) those years would be statistically indistinguishable from all the other years of the past fifteen years or so – instead of being a little above them. El Nino years are warmer than others but they are followed by cooler years, as was the case after the El Nino years of 2003, 2006, 2010 and it will probably be the case for 2015. Typically La Nina years have sea surface temperatures about 1.5 °C lower with some regions being 3-5°c lower than El Nino years. All things considered it’s likely that we will see a global cooling after the El Nino. The “hiatus” in global temperature has not gone away, it is being modulated by El Ninos." --David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 9 November 2015

Are in-the-long-run-we will-all-be dead assertions genuine 'predictions'? In a year's time, summer will begin on planet Earth at this precisely time is a prediction. But what about: 'there will be more extreme weather events' somewhere at some time in the future?

Professor Pitman (UWA, 2013): “the demands coming from the impact and adaptation communities to give them the information they need, puts immense pressure on the climate scientists to do what they have been doing much, much better and cleverer in the future”.

No wonder they find themselves under ‘immense pressure’.

Alice
Enough is known about climate change to act.

It is not possible to predict what the weather is going to be like in 3 weeks time through natural variation. In the same way it is not possible to predict all eventualities which impact on climate; who could foretell the drought and fires in the Amazon Basin in 2015, or the terrible fires in Indonesia. Who could have foretold that a rainforest in Washington State which has precipitation over 1 metre generally would have a wild fire go through. We are not able to predict volcanoes becoming active. Who could have foretold the almost 500,000 acres burnt in June 2015 in Alaska? The Iditarod dog sled race has been a feature in Alaska, but the lack of snow and ice have been an issue since the beginning of the 21 century 3 times.

Modelling over long periods tends to smooth out these anomalies.
ExxonMobil scientists modelled the break down of Arctic sea ice in 1984 which is happening at present.

The IPCC hardly mentioned the release of methane from the Arctic; since, there has been much effort put into studying methane impacts and the breakdown of permafrost.
It is not looking good. Pingo explosions, and the Greenland ice sheet melting on top and melt water disappearing down moulins undermining the ice sheet from underneath .

The "blob" was a feature for some time prior to this years el nino event. There had been warm waters from Mexico to Alaska, a very unusual Pacific Decadal Oscillation; something like 1998, but the warm waters were extending further North in 2015. Like the 1998 el nino, this year's el nino has been termed a godzilla event, much more powerful than the vast majority of el ninos prior in recorded history.

Continued

Continued:

The recent cyclone in Yemen was completely unexpected. A most unusual amount of warmth by a huge factor has been registered off Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean in early November 2015

Your expectations are too high in relation to predictions about the future.

There are factors which are very obvious; CO2 levels are trending upwards, as are temperatures, and levels of methane voiding. Glaciers are in the main are regressing

Yes, flea, manipulating material again to mislead readers. You attempt to mislead as to Watts’ words which are in the context of human CO2 being trivial, and there being no science to support the assertion of human caused global warming.
Watts quite reasonably, says:” They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."
Of course we do not want fraud promoters introducing policy, as we had when Juliar introduced the carbon tax, ignoring the advice of scientists. Australians, other than fraud supporters like yourself, flea, would wholeheartedly endorse Watts’ words.

Hi Leo,

You have been hung out to dry. Really, you should stop posting before you get much further behind. Your ad-hominem comments to ant where you call him flea have rebounded on you. You state that you have debating experience. As a debater and an adjudicator, I know that bluster and smokescreens can only take you so far.

You arguments are shallow and consist mostly of denying posts made by ant and by others. You allege fraud constantly but without evidence. You come across as the worst form of climate change denialst: you are without substance in this discussion.

Go away!

Brian, you seem not to have noticed that I do not deny any science, yet you have the gall to call me a denier.
Do you have some science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? So far no one does, so there is no science to deny.
How did you miss that, Brian? You are not adjudicating a debate, and would be a failure if you were, so you have contributed nothing of relevance, just wasted a little of my time on your irrelevant, baseless, nonsense.

Leo, you exemplify "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing".

Good night

Typical fraud-backer's answer, Brian. You have no answers, no science, and are reduced to baseless, puerile, schoolyard level ad hominem.
You are where all fraud supporters have to arrive, shown to be without science and without any basis for your fraudulent assertion of human caused climate change.
Thanks for your confirmation of this. Your next stop is the Hall of Shame.
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so the assertion that there is such effect is baseless, and only made by fraud-promoters like the flea and Brian.As shown in my posts above, the human effect is trivial and not measurable.
What a pathetic spectacle you have made of yourself, Brian.

Leo, there is no science to show the human effect on climate is trivial. Now considering a major part of your argument was based on the refuted claim that humans were responsible for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere (when it's actually about 30%) isn't it time you reexamined your beliefs?

Science shows that CO2 causes warming, as it absorbs (and reradiates down) some of the infrared that's emitted when the sun warms the planet's surface. Science also shows us the planet is warming. There are difficulties in measuring exactly how much warming is due to human activity, as the atmosphere, oceans and planet surface are a very complex system with lots of feedback mechanisms of different sorts (positive and negative, instantaneous and delayed) but there is still substantial evidence to indicate the effects are significant.

Leo
Do you deny the existence of the Keeling Research Station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that has been researching the levels of CO2 for decades?

What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre Industrial times, compared to now?
What are the current readings? How big a percentage increase has there been?

Remember science is about asking questions; not aggressive sophistry.

What evidence do you have that this quote is wrong?

""The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Feb. 25 in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.""

from:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Something of interest Leo, the mainstream Christian Churches in Australia ( Uniting, Anglican, and Catholic) believe in anthropogenic climate change; they even have units/persons studying the matter, by your reckoning they must be committing fraud.

Nigel Calder, sadly no longer with us, closely followed the global warming fraud during his career, and made many constructive observations on it.
His concept of the Hall of Shame, for fraud promoters, is always worth a read.
"Hall of Shame
Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash."
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

In a post, dated Sunday, 29 November 2015, ant writes, "You still have not answered the question as to when fraud began, Leo."

A curious challenge, seeing as how no one in the discussion at that point had ever asked anyone, any such question.

Ant then went on, in the same paragraph, "Arrhenius made predictions at the beginning of the 19 century..."

Ah, not quite right ant. A minor point, but worthy of correcting. It is extremely unlikely that Svante Arrhenius made any predictions at the beginning of the 19th century, because he wasn't born until 1859. Are we talking about the same Arrhenius?

Finally, ant, in the next paragraph, gets around to posing the question to Leo Lane that he'd already been accused previously of not answering. Sheeze. Some questionable logic here.

Anyway, the question ant posed was, "When exactly did the fraud you have pushed for a considerable time commence?"

Now that's a very good question ant. When exactly indeed.

Not wishing to steal Leo Lane's question, I was very interested to ascertain the facts of the matter myself, for personal selfish reasons and even though not invited, I'd like to put forward my views and accredit or blame the perpetrators - depending on your point of view.

Notwithstanding previous political history, of which I'd think there would be some and accepting the basic science regarding CO2 and its abilities of absorption and re-radiation of long wave energy, it seems likely that the "fraud" commenced circa 1970.

Read on...

(Cont)

(Cont)

As the chief orchestrator, I would point my finger at Maurice Frederick Strong.

Refer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
"Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was President of Power Corporation of Canada until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme."

As the main organisation refer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Environment_Programme
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Formation: 5 June 1972.
"Its activities cover a wide range of issues regarding the atmosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, environmental governance and green economy. It has played a significant role in developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science and information and illustrating the way those can be implemented in conjunction with policy, working on the development and implementation of policy with national governments, regional institutions in conjunction with environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs)."

Yep, all the usual suspects there. But the next bit's somewhat surprising.

"UNEP has also been active in funding and implementing environment related development projects" - such as the Miss Earth beauty pageant! (Worth checking out as a side issue if you like that sort of thing).

And now here's the next bit of the trail, "The World Meteorological Organization and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988."

IPCC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
"The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore".

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Lie?

So ant, in answer to your question, I reckon the fraud got under way about 1972 and has followed the above path since. Depending on your political persuation, and nothing to do with genuine science, the above trail sets out the heros or the fraudsters. The fraud is the politics hiding behind the grossly exaggerated "science".

There's nothing new about any of the above, but ant asked for it.

voxUnius,

Indeed, you did find I had made a mistake with my centuries thank you for correcting me, Ahrrhenius (1859 - 1927) was busy with his Physics at the beginning of last century.

Guy Calendar, kept meticulous notes on temperature from around the earth and published that the planet was warming back in 1938. So he was adding information already begun by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius and others.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/75-years-after-callendar/

By the 1970s climate science was developing further.

I realize for many the United Nations is seen as some kind of political conspiracy. But in the case of climate science there was already a body of knowledge to back up Maurice Strong.

ExxonMobil's own paper work lets it down in relation to funding denier groups:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1019872-2001-exxon-giving-report.html

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon-http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/75-years-after-callendar/did-cohen

It is my understanding that the Pillippine's Commission for Human Rights is being requested to investigate the role of major fossil fuel companies involved in climate change and its impact on the community.

First sentence:

"In a first, CHR to probe global polluters for rights violations", 4 December 2015
The Commission on Human Rights announced…that it will give due course to a petition filed in the Philippines by various environmental advocacy groups seeking an investigation of 50 international “carbon majors.”

From:

http://business-humanrights.org/en/philippines-carbon-majors-face-national-human-rights-complaint-on-climate-change-for-the-first-time#c128007

The IPCC had skeptic scientist Professor Lindzen, denier economist Richard Tol and ExxonMobil scientists involved with it. Richard Tol has since stated that anthropogenic climate change is real. The conspiracy theory doesn't hold that well when ExxonMobil and skeptics are involved with the IPCC; and also, with science being quite well developed, it does not make much of a conspiracy theory against Maurice Strong. The actions planned by the Phillipines against fossil fuel companies doesn't look good from a PR point of view.
Ken Cohen has pushed hard the message that ExxonMobil were pleased with their scientists, now ExxonMobil own documentation show they funded denier groups (referenced, 2001 being example given, but there are other years also) .

A referencewouldn't open, try this:

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/blog

The particular article is titled.....It’s not just what #ExxonKnew, it’s what #ExxonDid next

HUNT, HARES & HOUNDS

"run with the hare and hunt with the hounds"

Fig. to support both sides of a dispute. In our office politics, Sally always tries to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, telling both the clerical workers and the management that she thinks they should prevail.

Greg Sheridan - Weekend Australian pages 15/19 5-6 Dec 2015

“When Abbott asked Hunt to stay on, Hunt said he would do so only on certain conditions, Namely, he would endorse climate science. He would never question or oppose the basic science.”

“His acute political insight was simple. When the debate was over belief in the science, Labor won. When the debate was over electricity prices, the Coalition won. The Coalition had to convince the public that it took the science seriously.”

Quite a few folk, however, feel the Minister of the Environment actively supports bad science.

A professor of my acquaintance who can tell wheat from chaff is one of them:

"There was going to be in investigation into whether there had been Bureau of Meteorology falsification of past temperature records. Those of us following closely have seen the evidence gathering for over a year. But the Minister arbitrarily shut down the investigation, giving no plausible reasons."

Aiden, Watts pointed out an error in his reading of the table from which he worked, but did not indicate that it made any difference to the result, which it does not, because it is insignificant.
Your reference to it as a “refuted claim” is nonsense. Your assertion of 30% human contribution is new. Is that another lie you made up or did you dredge it up from a site like the one carrying the “acidification of oceans” lie.
Oceans are alkaline. If carbonic acid affects them it causes the ocean to be slightly less alkaline in the affected area. It does not cause the ocean to become acidic. That is a fraud promoting lie.
You repeat the laboratory science in relation to CO2 and warming, and we know that if it worked in practice, global warming would have continued as asserted by the fraud promoters, and would not have stopped more than 18 years ago. Refer us to the science, Aiden, which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, or stop repeating your boring mantra about the laboratory science which has been shown not to apply in practice, when applied by the fraud promoting scientists, who assert what the IPCC want us to believe, rather than authentic scientific observations.
The fact that no measurable human emissions effect on climate is measurable would indicate that the effect is trivial. What is your suggestion, Aiden?
Thanks, Vox Unius, for your accurate account of the genesis of the climate fraud. It is undiminished by the fact that it answered the flea's irrelevant, idiotic question. You are quite informative on a vital topic.

Leo, the claiim that "the ocean is turning into acid" is w strawman used  by fraudsters to fool the  uneducsted into thinking that ocean acidification isn't a real problem. But those who understand chemistry know that water is amphiprotic (which means it's both an acid and a base). Increasing the pH by 1 makes a solution ten times less acidic. Similarly decreasing the pH by 1 makes it ten times more acidic, whether the pH is below or above 7. The scientists never tried to imply the ocean was getting more acidic than pure water; the problem is it's becoming too acidic to support creatures with aragonite shells.

Your denial of correct definitions other than the ones you favour is like the person who claimed that the economy couldn't be in a depression because economies don't have emotions!  It also reminds me of the  Mitsubishi 4WD they named after the straw cat. They failed to realise that the Spanish word Pajero also mesns "straw carrier" and also something this board incorrectly identifies as profanity.

As  for the rest of your post, you're really grasping at straws. There's no scientific evidence for the claim humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2. Your source  of that figure was a blog post Watts made based on his mistaken assumption that the figure for a single  year's  emissions was the figure for the entire human contribution to atmospheirc CO2. How can that be insignificant? What would it take to refute such a claim in your eyes?

My 30% figure  is a simple calculation: the preindustrial atmospheric  CO2 level of 280ppm is 70% of  the current* figure of  400ppm.

Your claim that global warming "stopped  more than 18 years ago" is a lie. Global warming's still going,  and this year's set to be the hottest year on record.  Temperature  messurements do fluctuate due to  weather, the planet's albedo fluctuates, and the  amount of  heat going into and out of the ocean fluctuates too, but the trend is still clear: the world is warming.

* Although I expect the figure's slightly higher by now.

Leo

Strangely, or maybe not so strange; you did not answer my question:

"Do you deny the existence of the Keeling Research Station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that has been researching the levels of CO2 for decades?

What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre Industrial times, compared to now?
What are the current readings? How big a percentage increase has there been?"

Aidan has provided the answer, around 280 ppm in earlier times and it is now 400 ppm.
Have you ever heard of the Keeling Curve; Leo?

The Attorney General of New York is investigating whether ExxonMobil committed criminal activity in misleading the public, share holders, and investors in relation to funding denier groups to cause doubt in relation to the science. ExxonMobil's own scientists were supportive of the consensus view. Deniers have pushed hard for the paper work of Exxon to be scrutinised; but my guess is not some paper work in relation to 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 which outlines denier groups funded by ExxonMobil.

Alice

In relation to your comments about BOM tampering with temperature figures, nature bats last. In other words, you do not need a thermometer to know temperatures of the globe are going up.

An interesting article about how climate information is presented by some journalists:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-of-matt-ridley-benny-peiser-your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate/

On Saturday, 28 November 2015, on this thread, ant wrote, "The ARM study was highly sophisticated I and have yet to see anything like a critique. Please provide references that show the ARM study is wrong. It has been peer reviewed."

Fortunately, several posts later, ant supplied a link to a review of the study at Science Daily -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

I say fortunately, because I was interested to read about it.

It was an at-length study, over ten years, 2000 to 2010 when CO2 concentrations were about 390 parts per million (ppm). It attempted to measure the effects on surface temps of radiative forcing of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. They got some results and published.

Feldman, one of the scientists said, "Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect."

He went on, "Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade."

What? Read that again - 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade!

Think about it. That's a whole whopping 2 Watts per square metre per century!

If that's what CAGW people are trying to frighten us with, it's no wonder people aren't taking any notice.

The solar constant is generally considered to be a value about 1,361 Watts per square metre. That's the power coming from the Sun, constantly, daily. That's what sets our temperature and weather.

So, unless I've got things mixed up, that means in another hundred years the power input to Earth's surface is going to be (1,361 W from the sun + 2W from CO2) = 1,363 Watts per square metre.

That's 2 Newton metres of radiative forcing from CO2 per century.

You've got to laugh. No wonder the computer models aren't working. Thanks for the link ant.

It kind of supports Leo Lane's statement, "There is no science to show that there is any (measurable) significant human effect on climate."

voxUnius

Some questions:

How much energy was trapped by CO2 in pre Industrial times from radiated infrared?
How much extra trapped energy is a dangerous amount in your view?

Here is a reference putting greenhouse gases in perspective:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VmPA-ISO5sM

Watch the video at the end of the article; scientists from various disciplines make their comments:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Thanks Vox Unius, for your post. I haven’t had such a good laugh in ages, and your expertise in science brought it about. I have to rely on secondary school science, and what I have read since then. My tertiary education is in law, which I practiced for many years and which gave me the ability to recognise and dissect lies and dishonesty.
The most irritating aspect of the flea, I find, is not his lies and dishonesty, but his stupid, pointless questions. He cannot be as stupid as he would have to be, to ask the questions he does. I have made it clear to him that I do not answer stupid questions, from him, or anyone else, so he clearly only asks them to be annoying. He has never answered any question that I have put to him, and I only ask sensible questions.
I notice that the flea has put some stupid questions to you, and will be interested to see how you deal with him. Ignoring him does not work. How do you ignore a flea?

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

ANTARCTIC ANOMALY

Weather not climate, but there was an intriguing cold snap last winter too. Adelaide recorded its coldest July in 20 years. Temperatures in Victoria consistently 1C below normal average maximum.”

But the big news is the expanding sea-ice in Antarctica. Was this why southern Australia had its chilliest winter in almost two decades – and first snow in Hobart since 1986?”

The June 2015 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 14.9 million square km, 1.00 million square km or 7.2 percent above the 1981-2010 average. This was the third largest Antarctic sea ice extent on record.

There was above-average sea ice in every region of the Antarctic, with much-above average ice in the eastern Waddell and Ross Seas. June 2015 is the fourth consecutive June with above-average sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere.

Yet the experts claim all this is ‘consistent with’ global warming. For ‘even in a warming world’ temperatures in some regions apparently can be colder than average. How convenient.

They say: "The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent might seem paradoxical given changes in the global climate, but it's not when we consider some of the other factors at play.”

What we have here is another unfalsifiable hypothesis. For whether Antarctic sea-ice extent decreases or increases, both outcomes are now interpreted as evidence of warming.

Genuine science - or just an an alarmist tactic to protect the orthodoxy at all costs?”

From what I can decipher of the confused nonsense of your post, flea, you are talking about extreme weather events, falsely asserted to be due to human caused global warming. Climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr.has read the IPCC Report, and had this to say:
“Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change, including the currently popular "billion dollar disasters" meme, you can simply call "bull*t" and point to the IPCC SREX report. “
http://tinyurl.com/opbm8du
Nice to have you nailed by an independent scientist, flea..

Alice

Antarctica has certainly been on the news over the last years in relation to the 5 Pine Island Glaciers and the Totem Glacier.

ExxonMobil, Koch brothers et al have been very successful in creating doubt through funding denier groups. Exxonmobil's own documentation shows they were doing so.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/11/03/more-on-antarctic-ice-melt/

Zwally et al have published a paper very recently that shows research till 2008 of Antarctica; the author suggests that deniers will miss use the research he has provided.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071;jsessionid=pi1c23u2cqo4.alexandra

Zwally et al paper has been critiqued on the basis of how they took measurements; but Zwally makes a point of saying that man created climate change is real.

Leo

The Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of New York has been investigating ExxonMobil for 12 months for what he terms possible criminal behaviour and subpoena has been presented to the company.

The underlying question from my last post was, what is going on with the weather events in 2015? In relation to cyclone Patricia, a Meteorologist suggested it was a 1 in 1,000 year possible statical chance and stated there had been 5 such other occurrences in the US since 2010. No single example provided was attributed to climate change, though each example given is extremely unusual.

The short video clip at the end of the article gives an excellent description on what can be expected from climate change in relation to weather. A number of references are provided in the article.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Which single weather event of 2015 in my last post was attributed to climate change, Leo?

The Fijians in Paris have stated at Paris that 40 communities have had to be moved and are expecting another 400 will need to do so through sea rise.
Already a Marshall Island has succumbed to a rising sea level.

Leo

This lobbed onto my Face Book page today; the article is about how ExxonMobil has repudiated the Republican Party for being out of touch in relation to anthropogenic climate change.

This is the headline of the article: "ExxonMobil Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ 7°F to 12°F Global Warming Without Government Action"

The first sentences:

"It’s a Through-The-Looking-Glass world. The Washington Post reports Sunday that ExxonMobil has a far saner view of global warming than the national Republican party.
Fred Hiatt, the paper’s centrist editorial page editor, drops this bombshell:
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

From:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

ant

Stop squirming and wriggling and incanting your liturgy and answer the question directly on point without evasion.

Do you, or do you not, understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on any logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

This is my first reply on this forum and My first Question to you all on climate change.
My Question ? If I was to cut the top off a 20 litre/5 gallon drum and fill it to the top with water and then light up a oxy torch fitted with a cutting tip set to maxiumn heat and place the heating tip a few inches above the water, my Question is ? how many hrs would it take before I got the water in the drum hot enough that the average person wouldn't be able to drink it.

ant

I told you to stop squirming and evading.

Answer the question.

Do you, or do you not, understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on any logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

JKJ,

What is this 'Appeal to Absent Authority' you're always on about? It sounds made up to me. I Googled 'appeal to absent authority' and the best I got was your post on Yahoo questions in which you weren’t really asking a question and, subsequently, had your arse handed to you because of that (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121225062907AA7NElc).

The Appeal to Authority is a recognised fallacy, but what’s an appeal to an absent authority? Is it just a fancy way of conveying the denialist denial that a consensus exists amongst the relevant scientists with regards to climate change?

Are you trying to coin your own fallacy? That's cute, but you're no PZ Myers.

"The Appeal to Authority is a recognised fallacy, but what’s an appeal to an absent authority?
[...] a consensus exists amongst the relevant scientists with regards to climate change[.]"

Thank you for conceding the general issue and thus the entire argument.

We have now established by common agreement, and your acknowledgement, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs about catastrophic man-made global warming.

Having acknowledged that your and ant's technique of appealing to authority is fallacious, you acknowledge your argument is fallacious since it consists of no other attempt at proof than endlessly bleating your allegation of some unidentified, unspecified, absent, unquestionable authority somewhere else.

Do you think the reason for your squirming evasion is not obvious?

Obviously if you assert that scientific proof can rely on logical fallacy, you demonstrate that you don't understand the first thing about science, and are in no position to talk down to others about it.

But if you admit that science cannot rely on logical fallacy, we have established by agreement that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs that we face catastrophic global warming from man-made CO2 that policy can improve.

So either your appeal to absent authority disproves you, or if it doesn't, then you accept that I completely disprove your argument to your own standard, by your own methodology, by appeal to the same authorities.

You are denying the science which has been established by consensus.

There. How do you like it? Please acknowledge that you consider this to be a total disproof of your argument; or if not, then you admit your argument is wrong.

If there's a "consensus" that 2 + 2 = 9, then according to you, that constitutes a scientific proof that 2 + 2 = 9.

Yes? That's what you're arguing?

Fool. You're only proving that your religious enthusiasm has long since cut all traces with the concept of rational proof.

Ant
Answer the question and stop your evasion: do you understand, or do you not understand, that a scientific proof cannot rest on logical fallacy including appeal to authority?

Jardine,

I notice you didn't answer AJ's question. Why do you think the authority of scientists is absent?

And how can AJ's post be conceding the entire argument when AJ wasn't previously participating in that argument?

"We have now established by common agreement, and your acknowledgement, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs about catastrophic man-made global warming."
That would only be true if the scientists were basing their own work on consensus and ignoring the data. But they're not; they're basing it on observed data and theoretical predictions.

You misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to authority. You seem to think the authority of experts should always be ignored and everyone has to explain absolutely everything to your satisfaction otherwise they've lost an argument!

But you're a hypocrite! You frequently spout logical fallacies such as the one I just quoted. Indeed that one looks almost sensible compared to your claim on another thread of "appeal to alleged or assumed supernatural or magical forces"!

There will never be a consensus among experts that 2 + 2 = 9 as the only people who could believe that are those who can't add up and those who don't know what the symbols = + 2 and 9 mean. Among the experts, the consensus will always be that 2+2=4. A consensus among experts is not proof, but it is generally an indicator that something is likely to be right. And although it would only take one person with a sufficiently good explanation to disprove a consensus, no such explanation has been made (though in the case of AGW, many have tried).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alice Thermopolis,

Melting of ice on land means more fresh water is flowing into the sea, reducing local salinity levels (especially near the surface) thus making it easier for water to freeze. So an increase in seasonal sea ice is what would be expected from global warming. Which is good because it's a negative feedback mechanism.

Jardine

The Appeal to Authority does not apply when there is a consensus view in relation to what is being discussed. Deniers like to try and turn concepts upside down and apply them inappropriately.
Politicians from around the world have taken notice of what scientists have been informing us; they are now part of the consensus view.

Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al provide much science to show that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Those Agencies are part of the consensus view generally; so if you are planning on using technical terms: Jardine, use a term properly.
Science Journals that publish papers about climate change support the views of man created climate change generally shown through the few papers published by skeptical scientists.

All that deniers are able to come up with is sophistry, there is a lack of completely up to date references to support their views. All we get is nit picking; saying things are wrong but supplying no references to show how something is wrong.

Even ExxonMobil support the view of anthropogenic climate change. Deniers have had to back track in relation to comments about ExxonMobil.

Aidan

“Why do you think the authority of scientists is absent?”

It’s absent because the warmists, for all their proof of what is in issue, are referring off to the authority of persons who are absent from this forum.

“That [i.e. logical invalidity of warmist argument by referring off to other people elsewhere] would only be true if the scientists were basing their own work on consensus and ignoring the data. But they're not; they're basing it on observed data and theoretical predictions.”

So you’re unashamedly arguing that the proof that an appeal to authority is not fallacious, is in the appeal to authority itself? Yes? Admit this please? And do you admit and allow an equal right for me to use the same technique against you to settle the question in issue?

Can’t you see that your argument depends on everyone agreeing with you as a precondition of entering into the discussion?

But what if they don’t? All you have then, for proof, is endlessly insisting that you must be right because, without offering any proof or reason, you tell us that someone, somewhere else, has satisfied you enough for you to believe it.

But that’s not science. It’s just a fallacy. The onus is on you to prove it. Ant has the onus of proof back-the-front, expecting me to prove a negative, when he hasn't proved anything but his own belief that science means illogic.

“You misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to authority. You seem to think the authority of experts should always be ignored …”

Not always. If the disputants are agreed, then no issue arises. But if they do not agree, there has to be a dialogue of reason. You have to prove. Your belief that "science" means just blind unquestioning credulity without reason or evidence, but only authority, is flatly incorrect, simple as that.

Otherwise you’re contradicting yourself, because you’re arguing simultaneously that
1. No discussion will be brooked; you simply will not allow that the principles of logic could possibly falsify your argument, AND

(cont.)

2. You keep wanting to persuade others - by argumentation – to believe what you believe. But you won’t allow any other method of proof than that, before anyone enters the discussion, everyone must have already accepted that your beliefs are conclusive, without any reason or proof, and only referring off to absent persons. That’s what you and ant are arguing.

I’ll show you why it’s fallacious by refuting ant to his own standard, okay?

Ant

Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific.

There.

Now according to the intellectual methodology and standard of proof of ant and Aidan, we have just established, by all-sufficient proof, that your arguments have no basis in science.

This would only be “sophistry” if appeal to authority were *not* a fallacy. But since it is, and you agree, we have established by agreement, by your own methodology and to your own standard of proof, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs that we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve.

On the other hand, if you argue that whether the fallacy of appeal to authority is fallacious, depends on the appeal to authority itself, then you deny that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is what you’re doing.

So your argument boils down to nothing but
“It is, because it is, because it is”
which is not scientific. The sophistry is all your own.

Now. Just answer my question directly on point without evasion. Do you understand, or do you not understand, that a scientific proof cannot rest on logical fallacy including appeal to authority?

Ant and Aidan
What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?

The most that could be said about your argument is that you deny that science must be logical, and you will never accept that argumentation could possibly settle the question in this forum, so you need to shut up.

Q.E.D.
You're talking circular, illogical, gibberish.

Jardine

What exactly does your rant/sophistry have to do with science?

The Arctic is in poor shape as evidenced by referenced article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/arctic-noaa-report-record-high-temperatures-diminishing-sea-ice?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=f813c48ee1-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-f813c48ee1-303429069

The deliberations in Paris moved the guardrail from an increase 2C to 1.5C over pre industrial times. There are good reasons for that change. The reference below dovetails into the one above; the state of permafrost being a concern.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/09/a-paris-climate-agreement-is-supposed-to-help-save-the-planet-but-the-planet-may-have-other-ideas/

Jardine,
Appeal to authority is not intrinsically a fallacy. However:

It is a fallacy to claim that appeal to authority amounts to scientific proof.
It is a fallacy to use appeal to authority to claim something MUST be true.
It is a fallacy to use appeal to authority to ignore evidence.
It is a fallacy to appeal to a non-authority (like in your 2+2=9 example)

And it really should go without saying that it's a fallacy to fraudulently misrepresent the position of an authority, like when you said to Ant: "Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

What appeal to authority is most useful for is establishing the burden of proof. You seem to think that whenever you participate in a discussion the burden of proof should always be entirely with your opponents – and worse still, if any one of their arguments contains a fallacy, you declare that proves you right (even though there is no logical basis for this conclusion).

When experts reach a consensus, it makes more sense to presume them to be correct unless you actually have evidence that they're wrong.

"What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?"
A very large amount of environmental damage is being done by those who believe, despite overwhelming evidence, that their actions and decisions won't affect the outcome.

BTW your deluded assumptions about what I think are proof of illogicality on your part, not mine.

Aidan

Okay so we have just established to your own standard that what you're saying is fallacious.

You are affirming these propositions:
1. whether an appeal to authority is fallacious, is to be determined by the party making the appeal to authority,
2. that party can use the appeal to authority itself, to determine whether it's fallacious
3. appeal to authority is NOT acceptable as proof in the debate over climate.

It's no use telling me I must accept your beliefs i.e. "consensus" of "experts" etc. That's precisely the issue! What if I don't agree, and for good reason? What are you going to do then? You need to prove. All you're doing now, is endlessly repeating the same loop: assume it's true before entering the discussion, appeal to authority, and when challenged, assume it's true again, and appeal to authority again. And so on! That's all the warmists have ever done!

Therefore we have just established, by your own standard, that your argument is fallacious. Therefore it is not scientific. And therefore you have just lost the entire argument about climate.

The onus of proof is on anyone who advocates coercive means to violate the personal or property rights of others; plus it's on anyone advocating legislative or policy change. Which means you
a) have, and
b) have never discharged
the onus of proof.

Just look at ant's last post. It would only make sense if a) we assume he's right in the first place, and b) his appeal to authority constitutes scientific proof. Irrational!

If you are concerned about the environmental damage being caused by unbelievers, then you need to do something other than just endlessly insist that you are right, and that no discussion will be brooked. You need to prove. You need to answer the questions that you evade answering because you know they prove you wrong.

Do NOT reply by again insisting that your appeal to authority settles the question; it's just too idiotic for words. Answer my questions!

"And it really should go without saying that it's a fallacy to fraudulently misrepresent the position of an authority, like when you said to Ant: "Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

I'm only doing what you're doing. That's what you're calling "fraudulent misreprsentation."

Can't you see that either:
a) the appeal to authority is valid as a form of argumentation, in which case you accept that my doing what you're doing - referring off to absent authority - settles the question, and you are just "denying the science" if you don't agree,
OR
b) the appeal to authority is not valid.

So either way, you must lose the argument.

You can't just insist that a fallacy is scientific proof and settles the general issue in your favour, if you use it, but fraudulent misrepresentation if I do it.

You have to use the same standard on both sides of the equation.

There is NO requirement for me to just agree with your conclusion as a precondition of entering the argument.

You are openly telling me that you do not accept argumentation as a method of determining what is true or not. So what are you doing here?

You need to prove what you are saying, by answering my questions.

I have repeatedly shown that the warmists are not able to maintain their claims in favour of any climate policy whatsoever. You have failed to answer them. You have lost the argument because you admit that argument - appeal to authority - is fallacious.

End of discussion. You lost. No climate policy whatsoever is justified.

"Okay so we have just established to your own standard that what you're saying is fallacious."
No, you have reached that conclusion based on false assumptions.

"It's no use telling me I must accept your beliefs i.e. "consensus" of "experts" etc."
I didn't. I was under the impression your position was that those experts were wrong on the consensus they reached. If instead you want to argue they haven't reached a consensus, or that they're not really experts, you're welcome to do so.

"The onus of proof is on anyone who advocates coercive means to violate the personal or property rights of others; plus it's on anyone advocating legislative or policy change. Which means you
a) have, and
b) have never discharged
the onus of proof."
You seem to have contrived that so the onus of proof is never on you! I suppose that position would be credible if we were discussing proposed courses of action. But we're not; we're discussing (or at least trying to discuss) scientific reality. So the onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

"I'm only doing what you're doing. That's what you're calling 'fraudulent misreprsentation.'"
Really? What experts do you think I claimed said something completely different from what they actually said?

"Can't you see that either:
a) the appeal to authority is valid as a form of argumentation, in which case you accept that my doing what you're doing - referring off to absent authority - settles the question, and you are just 'denying the science' if you don't agree,
OR
b) the appeal to authority is not valid."
No. There's an enormous difference between an honest appeal to authority and a fraudulent appeal to authority (lying about what that authority says).

"So either way, you must lose the argument."
An honest appeal to authority is unlikely to be sufficient to win an argument, but it's even less likely to be sufficient to lose one.