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