Leo

Your appeal to authority is but a fallacious argument.

Heartlands doesn't have any credibility being funded by fossil fuel companies to create doubt.

There is a film clip where Monbiot has a debate with Plimer; Plimer did not come out looking good. Plimer came out appearing quite arrogant, Monbiot was quite rude, but Monbiot provided better views on science.
Books provide interesting ideas, but do not have the same status as peer reviewed Journal papers.

When communist type comments are made, it suggests a political motive for being against the science of climate change. Politics has no veracity in relation to science.
You misrepresented me in relation to the cartoon; there was a comment about "death to infidels" a clear ISIS association.

The association between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves is known.
What we have is W/m2; where W equals watts, and m2 equates to meters squared.
How many billions of square meters is your figure for the planet, Leo?

At present the sun is in a dimming phase, why is temperature not going down?
You keep suggesting that silly questions are being asked, and so won't answer them.
Science is about continually asking questions; but, you are unable to and are quite abusive in your comments.

Stay in the schoolyard until you pass your exams, Max, do your puerile babbling there. The assertion is by Vaclav Klaus, a qualified economist, who was President of the Czech Republic, and observation of calls from fraud promoters to stiflethe truth to prove him right(see below). There is nothing to back your assertion. Klaus has written a book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles, in which he details his observations
There are honest assessments of Plimer’s contribution which are different to yours, flea:” George Monbiot is doubling down on the lies he and Tony Jones made in the debate they had with Ian Plimer. Monbiot has a new article out reinforcing these lies indirectly. The article has the heading:
“Should climate deniers be allowed to speak on the Today programme?
Had the BBC done its research, Ian Plimer’s falsehoods would not been allowed to pass unchallenged”
WHAT FALSEHOODS WOULD THAT BE GEORGE YOU LIAR? George Monbiot isn’t about to answer that question. The falsehoods came from Monbiot and Jones.
Monbiot made an idiot of himself in that debate. It was Monbiot who refused to answer any questions on climate science. Plimer wrote a book and answered the questions. He also answered the questions during the debate when he could get a word in ”
You say, flea:“Science is about continually asking questions”
The questions need to be pertinent, flea, like mine to you, which you never answer. I have explained to you in detail why your questions have been irrelevant.
Another good witness for the Royal Commission, the climate scientist Nils Axel Morner, who has just published a paper.
An extract:” The anthropogenic, CO2-driven, Global Warming (AGW) has taken the world by storm, and grown into a new `religion´. It is built on false premises, however. It violates the physical law of a logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature, and it ignores actual temperature measurement and related observational facts. The calculated temperature changes from 102 AGW-models lie above measured values by a factor of three. It leaves us with the conclusion that the AGW- idea is a heresy.”
http://crescopublications.org/journals/jbl/JBL-1-001.pd

Leo

You suggest questions need to be pertinent; you are not able to answer them when they are about science. Science is about continually asking questions.

Continually suggesting something is wrong without responding to why, is meaningless. It is a logical fallacy; along with logical fallacies your comments mostly contain abuse. Needing to be abusive to try and make a point is the hallmark of a flimsy argument.

Quotes from books making statements of opinion make not an iota of difference to science.

When deniers can break done the fundamental touch stone of climate science; then, they have a basis to argue from.

Leo, some questions about science:

Can the origin of CO2 be identified through its isotopes?

What evidence is there to show that W/m2 multiplied by billions of square meters is wrong?

If CO2 has little impact on climate; what natural phenomena is causing the climate to change?

Deforestation also has an impact on climate, as do water vapour and methane gas.
At present, Los Angeles in California has major problems with methane being voided. Thousands of people have had to leave their homes for an indeterminate period.

The obvious response is the sun; however, the sun is in a slight dimming phase at present and temperature should be cooling, it is going up.

Volcanic action has been an issue in the distant past, creating huge quantities of CO2; but, volcanic action is having virtually no impact at present.

What is your explanation for "atmospheric rivers"?

What caused the pingo explosions on the Yamal Peninsula of Siberia?

What is causing glaciers in the Andes and New Zealand to be regressing?

An abusive comment back, and saying they are silly questions would highlight you have nothing valid to present. Just responding to one of the questions is no answer, as you make blanket statements about climate science being wrong.

Leo asserts that today's climate science ignores the...

"logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature"

Rubbish. Climate scientists know ALL about this, and it is perfectly accounted for. How much do climate scientists say the first chunk of pre-industrial C02 warmed the planet?

Then how much do they say a doubling of this will warm the planet?

Why are these 2 numbers different?

Go ahead Leo, I'd love to see you explain this!

Tinfoil hat much?
Defying the world scientific community much?
Conspiracy theory much?
Moon made of cheese much?
Embarrassing yourself much?
Need to grow up much?

All that Max has to explain is why the laboratory science of carbon dioxide does not work in the real world. If it did, then global warming would not have stopped almost 19 years ago, at a time when the “science” predicted that it would continue and increase. Max’s brilliant comment, rubbish” describes the form and content of his “science”. Even as an ignoramus from the school-yard he should be able to do better.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, is there, Max? You have shown us that you are ignorant of science, but at least you know that. Try to build on that starting point, instead of drivelling on about tin hats.

Leo

You have set yourself up as a scientist and say experiments in the laboritory do not support climate science. Where is your evidence?

The ARM study was conducted over 11 years in the natural environment at 2 locations.
It showed the relationship between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves and warming.

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