Leo

It is not that long ago that ExxonMobil executives stated that the science of climate science is valid; something their scientists in the 1970s and 1980s had agreed on.

A major British paper which has assessed climate change risk:

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/climate-change--a-risk-assessment-v11.pdf

This is the kind of material you say is lies, Leo.

The flea states:” This is the kind of material you say is lies, Leo”
That is an untrue statement, flea, a lie.. I do not say that, I say that none of it is scientific proof, and Exxon Mobil’s unsound belief in climate change is not scientific proof.
You need to refer us to science which shows that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate, not point to someone asserting an unsupported and erroneous belief.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, flea, which is why I find you dishonest.

Leo

You stated: "...Exxon Mobil’s unsound belief in climate change is not scientific proof...."
Scientists working for ExxonMobil wrote papers that supported the the scientific consensus.

Leo you have previously stated that: "... Claiming that 2015 was the “hottest year on record” is fraud promoting nonsense;
“ government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages...."

Already in early December 2015, many were commenting that 2015 would be the warmest year recorded on the basis that measures of temperature of prior months had significantly increased. The probability of not reaching a record in 2015 when commented on in December were extremely remote. The increase was not in hundredths of a degree, as you intimated Leo.
December 2015 was when ski fields in Europe did not have enough snow for skiers, people in New York were able to be outside in T shirts at Christmas time, and temperatures in the Arctic Circle were for a short period being measured above freezing (Svalbard Airport).

Quote:

"Climate projections of the future need to be placed in the context of our understanding of the climate system. We have a clear and longstanding knowledge of the basic physics that tell us increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are expected to warm the planet.10 We know that the planet has warmed over recent decades and that this warming is unusual compared to the expected natural variations.11 This can be explained by the extra energy accumulated in the climate system."

From:

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/climate-change--a-risk-assessment-v11.pd

The kind of paper you claim is not science , Leo.

ant,

Frankly ant I have decided to give up on you. You aren't interested in open discussion but in simply regurgitating what you hope is true as though its fact.

This is the second time I've caught you out just asserting someone has said something which they didn't say. And on both occasions you've tried to justify your outright fabrication on the basis that some deniers think it therefore all deniers think it. So, since some deniers think temperature records are falsified, mhaze, being a denier (according to ant) also thinks it and therefore its fine to accuse him of saying it.

The first time you did this most dishonest of deeds I assumed it was an error and you just weren't courageous enough to own up. But now its obviously a pattern. Its juvenile in the extreme and about as dishonest as it gets.

Additionally we see that you really aren't interested in 'the science' only that part of it which supports your screwy assertions. For example you wrote "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times."

That my boy is arrant rubbish and doubly so since I'd just linked, at your request, to a study that said the exact opposite. But I understand your problem. If temperature in the past 10000 years were higher than now, then half of what you consider to be your research is out the window. So you just assert the truth is what you want it to be rather than what it is.

As to the ARM 11 year study that you keep refering to as though its a killer blow to sceptics...well you'll be please to know that sceptics don't and, for the main part, never have doubted that CO2 has some warming effect. But you wouldn't know that because you only read approved texts. The issue is how much warming does it cause and does this out-weigh the negative feedbacks.

Leo,

ant tells you that "Scientists working for ExxonMobil wrote papers that supported the the scientific consensus."

They actually didn't. He made that up. Surprised?

Leo

The listed Royal Society papers are not science according to you, as climate change is discussed:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cc/species-on-the-move-from-royal-society-publishing

mhaze

Deniers have had to shift from a strident climate change isn't happening; some suggest that the planet is cooling, while others say there is change though not happening at the rate the science is stating.
mhaze, about 2 years ago I spent quite a lot of time researching historic temperature in comparison to contemporary temperature.

https://youtu.be/AD16nCsvjqs

In relation to papers written by ExxonMobil scientists I came across a list of papers that the scientists had written. There was extensive research done on ExxonMobil by Inside Climate News, Los Angeles Times and Union of Concerned Scientists. ExxonMobil is being investigated for criminal activity as it has been alleged they have misled financial the market through their scientists in the 1970s and 1980s saying that man was impacting on climate and executives were funding denier groups. ExxonMobil even rigged up an oil tanker to better understand climate science.

Elsewhere I mentioned how ExxonMobil Scientists had modelled the breakdown of sea ice in the Arctic which has been found to be quite accurate.

Deniers have tried to down play the ARM research which showed in a pragmatic way that CO2 and radiated infrared long wave do react. Words down playing the ARM research are meaningless, you need arguments incorporating Physics and Mathematics. Deniers have no such fundamental principle.

notice it was about 17 degrees today in Melbourne and 15 in Hobart. Oh well I suppose it only makes the news when you get a hot day in summer. The long hot summer that is predicted every year.