This is so far off the mark to almost be a work of fiction or just cherry picked observations to support a confirmation bias.

During the last 800,000 years, the highest pre industrial reading for Co2 was 289.6 pmv. Since then it had risen into previously uncharted territory and was 386 ppmv as of 2010 and currently increasing by 2 ppmv. (nature)

To be sure the sun usually drives the climate, however it has been in a waning phase since the mid seventies(NASA) And all while we recorded some of the warmest years on record.

Co2 is called a greenhouse gas because it produces a greenhouse effect and is a fantastic plant stimulant fertilizer, hence the term greenhouse effect.

And given an acre of trees can evaporate 2.5 times the moisture of open water and given more luxuriant growth evaporates or aspires more of it, one would expect to see more consequent moisture in the atmosphere, and given the excellent thermal blanket effect of atmospheric moisture some additional trapping of radiant heat.

And borne out by endlessly repeatable laboratory tests!

I just don't know why these folk get their knickers in a not at the idea of moving away from Co2 creating fossil fuels, in favour of much cheaper cleaner alternatives, and we most of all are blessed with mucho plenty.

Cheaper cleaner and more sustainable energy has no choice than promote prosperity. no two ways about it.

So explain all the smoke and mirrors obfuscation and fear mongering when faced with piloted change?

Unless you factor in IQ's lower than the ambient temperatures, or the Sergeant schultz's syndrome or just plain greed that is so powerful it just overrides all other considerations or inconvenient facts?

If you'd like to check my numbers go to ftp//ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pab/data/paleo/antarctica/vostok/readme-pet.+1999.txt. or as above until readme, then-vostok-Co2.txt.
Rhrosty.

I found this article shocking, for someone presenting themselves as an academic to present such an error ridden article that it's hard to know where to start and if there is any point.

The author has indicated that they have read a number of books about climate change, judging by this piece I'll wager they are all or mostly by contrarians.

All of the points he has raised have been addressed many times so of which are out right lies straight from right wing think tanks, you know the same ones that suggest smoking isn't that bad.

but then again what would you expect from someone who use to run an oil company who has made some rather interesting reviews of other people work in the past contributing to and Australian article a few years ago.

My colleagues and I were concerned to see Dr Brady referred to as "a climate change researcher at Macquarie University" in The Australian's article, as he is a retired paleontologist.

— Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Department of Biological Science, Macquarie University, 28th July, 2011

Climate change science has a long history.

A very short article going back to July 2012:

http://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

More recent evidence that fossil fuels are seen to have an impact:

http://www.ciel.org/news/smoke-and-fumes/

But, regardless of whether the climate has been impacted by man or not; changes are occurring.
There are coastal areas in Southern USA that have fine day floods, where suburban areas are flooded even though there have been no adverse weather. Fine day floods are associated with king tides and tidal waters travel up storm water pipes or seep up through porous ground.

The melt season has begun in Greenland well ahead of the usual time.
The Earth's tilt is said to have changed due to ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica.
Disease vectors are changing.
Warm water fish are being found in areas that had normally been associated with cooler water fish. Snapper and yellow fin king fish are being caught off the East Coast of Tasmania, for example.

Sorry, the article referred to goes back to July 1912.

Well well, don't these posters prove the old adage.

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You could whack this bunch with a baseball bat, & they wouldn't notice, if their betters had told them it didn't happen.

Not even going to bother reading this article. Why would I when the headlining quote for it can be debunked with a simple Google search?

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

"
My colleagues and I were concerned to see Dr Brady referred to as "a climate change researcher at Macquarie University" in The Australian's article, as he is a retired paleontologist.

— Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Department of Biological Science, Macquarie University, 28th July, 2011

Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 14 April 2016 12:18:58 PM"

The hero of the climate change tragics, Tim Flannery, is also a paleontologist. Flannery is to be believed, but this author, another paleontologist, is not believable? Flannery can be a 'climate change researcher', but another paleontologist cannot? This type of mucky non-thought proves the political aspect of the debate which is costing us billions. Those of us with nous know that climate change is natural, there is nothing to done about it, and we should simply adjust to change as we will have to when the climate decides to change again. The IPCC, its followers, the subsidised rent-seekers and pushers of 'alternative energy' - which relies entirely on a fickle climate and is too expensive - are all crooks out to make a quick dollar off the poor fools they have conned, and those of us with the common sense to stand up to them, but who are, thanks to a politcised media, put down as bad people. The pushers of the CO2 theory and inefficient wind a sun energy are the ones who should be put down - permanently.

@neverwas What betters do you mean Climate scientist or retired geologist?

Let's look at just one point sea level raises, the author say that sea levels will not raise if sea ice melts because of the "Archimedes Principle", now if your not very bright this might seem like a sensible argument. However consider why the ice melted...it got warmer what now if we just ignore the ice for the moment and just think about the water that is already liquid. What happens when things get warmer... they expand, what is the thermal expansion coefficent of water well its nonlinear with water but even you can look up a table and work out how much extra volume the sea would take up if it increased it's average temperature by say 1.5 DegC.

but let's not let facts get in the way.

ttbn

Peabody Coal has just filed for bankruptcy, a number of other coal mining companies in the US have already gone bankrupt. Coal is an old technology being pushed out by new technologies. The cost of new technology is continuing to go down becoming cheaper to use than coal.

Parts of the US are already flooding without weather being the issue. Miami is spending big on infrastructure to try and stop fine day flooding.

Cobbler the hound

When sea ice melts it makes way for land locked ice sheets to begin to break down which then has a greater impact. Already towns and cities on the South East Coast of the US have suburban streets flooded when there are king tides without adverse weather being a factor.

"Despite no warming since 1998..."

Has the reviewer slept through the past year?

Climate change has become the religion of the day. It is a simple way of saying, "Human activity is destroying the planet" It has become the catch cry for this pretty well self evident reality.

Other planet destroying issues ...often things we CAN easily do something about ... from GMOs to dangerous chemically laced environments and foods, dangerous medicines, crop spraying with Roundup and pesticides, the miss use of fresh water ... why the list is as long as your arm(s).. These issues have all been swallowed by the distraction of arguing about HUMAN induced Climate Change.

If only it were so simple and all would become magically right if we humans reduced the output of Carbon.

To worry is futile - to think deeper is necessary

Over population is the biggest environmental destroyer on
The planet.

It's the reason, Tigers,elephants and numerous other animals have become
almost extinct.

The biggest reason for the clearing of land and trees, is the overpopulation
In many developing countries.
The biggest pollution on earth is caused by the massive consumption needed
to support these populations.

This climate change thing is a religion of the left and greens, as it gives them
a noble sounding reason for bashing the wealthy countries, so they
can maintain their communist, socialist,viewpoint.

The global warming scam crowd must be getting desperate. They are screaming in the media up here, that Gold Coast homes COULD be underwater in a few hindered years with the rapidly accelerating ocean rising from global warming. Please note the Weasel word COULD.

Not to worry, we'll still have Pinchgut or Fort Denison as it's officially known to defend us against invasion. With the second oldest tide gauge in Oz, & one of the longest records in the world it is showing just 0.6mm a year, or 60mm a century. Yes that's right that is almost two & a half inches by 2116. I hope all those Gold coasters are suitably scared, & vote lots of money to academics to waste on horror stories.

The conclusion sums up what a valuable contribution this book is to the climate change debacle:
“ Brady suggests that the path forward requires a complete restructuring of the IPCC (perhaps abolition would be better). He hopes one day the edifice of global warming, built over the past 40 years and fuelled by greenhouse gases, will collapse”
The purpose of the IPCC is to examine the human effect on climate. Since there is no measurable effect, there is no reason for the fraud promoting IPCC to exist.

Thanks to Cliff Ollier for a most pertinent article.
The flea, the hound and Rhosty dissent from its assertions, so it is undoubtedly correct, as none of them have never been right, on any aspect of this topic.

Leo

In 1912 they were already discussing the impact of coal emissions.

http://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

Leo, you state:

"The flea, the hound and Rhosty dissent from its assertions, so it is undoubtedly correct, as none of them have never been right, on any aspect of this topic."

The problem you have Leo, is that you do not provide any proof in relation to what you assert.
Abuse is one of the main strategies you use; the use of abuse is a red flag indicating a lack of evidence.

One of your quotes from elsewhere:

"Is there no way to shut these criminals up, or at least get the press to stop parroting their lies?"

From:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18111&page=16

https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/16/the-weekend-wonk-eric-rignot-at-agu

Try debunking Eric Rignot; Leo , a multi qualified scientist, a renown expert on the cryosphere.

The flea states:” problem you have Leo, is that you do not provide any proof in relation to what you assert.”
No, flea, that is the problem you have. You have been requested scores of times to supply a reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, to support your assertion of human caused climate change. I supply sources for science which is relevant. You never supply relevant science.
You even use the misleadingly named Skeptical Science as a fererence, a site run by an unqualified dropout cartoonist, John Cook.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/sss-myth-creator-john-cook.html

The flea’s false and insolent assertion that I do not refer to science to back my assertions, reminds us that he is a liar and has never referred to any science to back his support of the assertion of human caused climate change.

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, flea?

Leo

No reference to science?
The 11 year ARM study displayed the relationship between CO2 and IR in the natural environment.
What you call no science, Leo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968987/Scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air.html

Last sentences:

"Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.
'The data say what the data say,' Feldman said.
'They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.'
The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

Another example of your non-science research, Leo.

http://westcoastoah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OAH-Panel-Key-Findings-Recommendations-and-Actions-4.4.16-FINAL.pdf

But, the climate is changing, regardless of what you suggest , Leo; whether it is by man created activities or otherwise, we need to adapt and mitigate.

An example of damage done by recent unexpected weather conditions:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/fantala-strongest-cyclone-on-record-for-indian-ocean-massive-flash-fl

Costs accrued? One example of numerous of such events over the last decades.

What do you suggest we do in relation to the changing climate (man made or otherwise), just let vulnerable areas get impacted regardless of cost?
Or, develop strategies to deal with climate change as well as we can?

You have a comprehension problem, don’t you. flea?
I said you have no relevant science. Look up the word “relevant”, and you will comprehend the conversation.
Amongst all the irrelevant garbage you have posted, there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
This makes you wrong in your support of the assertion of human caused global warming, and irrelevant in any science you have posted, through your unqualified incompetence.If you have any evidence of a qualification, or competence, you should let us know.

Leo

You use abuse and semantics to push your opinion, you are no arbiter of what comprises science.

Earlier in the year there were unprecedented bush fires in Tasmania; now, almost unbelievably wild fires have struck Northern areas of Canadia on 18 April 2016. The Fort St.John region has been hit; evacuations of people had to occur in some areas. Temperature have been extraordinarily high for their winter period.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fort-st-john-wildfire-1.3541983

http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regional-news/evacuation-orders-rescinded-for-baldonnel-and-taylor-but-alerts-remain-in-effect-1.2235382

Last year fires were a major issue in Canada and Alaska, a report dated 11 July discusses the early nature of the fire season in 2015.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/11/421995880/wildfires-in-canada-and-alaska-drive-thousands-from-homes

The question is Leo, what should we be doing to adapt to climate change?
Whether man created or natural climate variation is a secondary consideration.

The flea’s reference to my clear and unequivocal statements as semantics simply demonstrates his addle-brained outlook.
His science is irrelevant, because if he posted anything relevant it would immediately show his assertions to be unsupported by science.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, flea?
His uncivil response is invariably to ignore the question, and post irrelevant material, or none at all. Sometimes he employs the fraud promoter’s technique of answering a sensible question with a stupid question, but he has no science to support his assertion of human caused global warming.
He believes that using the term “semantics” makes him appear knowledgeable, while it simply confirms that he is an unresponsive ignoramus, with no tertiary qualification, and little education. He is incapable of a rational response, and refers to truthful statements about his incivility and misconduct, as "abuse"

I notice that the village idiot, A J Phillips sourced Skeptical Science from a google search of the headline of this article.
Are you attempting to promote this scurrilous misinformation site, AJP? As you would be aware, it is run by an unqualified cartoonist
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/sss-myth-creator-john-cook.html
A better reference from the search was:
“Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm. According to Hansen’s theories – all life on Earth should have been extinct before it even evolved.”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

The CO2 hypothesis has failed, but the fraudies still want to promote it, despite there being no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
A better reference from the search was:
“Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm. According to Hansen’s theories – all life on Earth should have been extinct before it even evolved.”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

Leo

Thank you for once again proving my point.

You have a point, flea?

Not one that I have ever noticed.

With your addle brained output, it would be like a needle in a haystack.

Yes, Leo, I have a point , you keep using aggression, it is a logical fallacy.
The few references you use stem from blogs or science papers long since superceded. Readers are able to access our previous comments in relation to previous articles so they can make up their minds. Many of the references I have provided relate to recently published science papers; the problem for contrarians is that very few papers are published in major science journals by skeptical climate scientists.

The non-science you refer to that I present has a trail to AAAS, Wiley, NASA, or Universities. At times film clips of scientists being interviewed has been provided. Many of the newspaper articles presented have hyperlinks to the science papers being discussed; while other newspaper articles refer to incredible events such as the wild fires at Fort St. John which have just occurred. Last year there were major fires in Alaska in June, and they were said to be early.
Prior to the Alaskan fires there had been fires that killed people in Siberia; though they had been set fires used for agricultural purposes that had become uncontrollable.

Infra-structure has already been impacted on; billions of dollars have been lost in damage from major events, people have been killed.

Whether caused by man or otherwise, damage is being done.
Planning needs to be progressing to adapt and mitigate against the climate change that is happening

Yes, flea, the point is that if I truthfully describe your behaviour, you will react by untruthfully categorizing what I say as “aggression” and “abuse”. If anything I have said is not true, if you can point to where you have responded to questions or posted something relevant to the topic, then do so, instead of dishonestly whining about non- existent “abuse”. It is your problem if your behaviour is so bad that a description of it reads like abuse. Learn to conduct yourself like a reasonable, honest human being and refer us to science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, or stop backing climate fraud.
The science which I have posted is not outdated, you are simply lying again. There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.

Leo

I invite readers to peruse your profile and mine, then they can assess from our comments which one of us is being aggressive.
I'd also invite readers to go to references I have provided.

But, the climate is changing; whether man created or otherwise, and we need to do something about it.

Thanks for saving me the effort, ant.

Leo, you are one angry and abusive little man, aren't you. It seems you adopt a lot of bluff and bluster in lieu of any evidence for your politically-driven beliefs.

Good bye.

The village idiot, AJPhillips, has made one last visit to the Forum, to support the flea.
AJ disappeared for a lengthy period after I asked him for a reference to science which showed any measurable human effect on climate.
His answer was that I had asked a “dishonest question”, earning himself the title of “village idiot”, before he disappeared. Like all the flea’s supporters, AJ will now disappear, and we will have a further reduction of one fraud supporting troll, and no one here tosupport the flea's dishonest nonsense. Where is the science to show any measurable human effect on climate, flea?

Where exactly did I say that, Leo?

<<His answer was that I had asked a “dishonest question”...>>

I'm not saying that I didn't, I just can't find it.

You wouldn't be... lying, now.... Would you? Because that would be so-o-o-o out of character for you, wouldn't it.

You seem to have ditched your "evidence" regarding the Carboniferous period pretty quickly now, I notice, and have resorted again to hurling abuse and insults.

As a fellow practitioner of the law, I hope you don't argue like this in court. I'd have you for breakfast.

Dear AJ Phillips,

Forgive me but I'm going to slightly disagree with you, I feel he actually believes what he is spouting.

Perhaps humouring him would be the kindest path for us all. To this end we should recognise his fondness for doling out nicknames and recognise he probably expects one in return.

As I am sure he is less a lying Leo Lane than a loopy Leo Lane, which has a definite ring to it, 'Loopy Leo', or 'Loopy' to his friends like us seems to be appropriate.

I feel this kind of recognition would most certainly scratch the attention deficit itch he constantly exhibits, leaving happier souls all round.

How about this for lying, AJ:You assert that I ”adopt a lot of bluff and bluster in lieu of any evidence for your politically-driven beliefs.”
My assertion has been, and still is, that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, and I have continually pointed out the evasion of the question by fraud backers like yourself. In your case you said it was a “dishonest question”. If this is indicative of your legal approach, you would be done like a dinner. Perhaps you suffer from the same delusion as Reflux. When he receives his customary trouncing, he crows about a non-existent victory.
I have posted science which backs the assertion th CO2 does not govern temperature.
In 2009 Robert Carter and others in a peer reviewed paper, showed that global warming was natural, and not driven by human emissions. In an article, he said:
“the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

You have nothing to back your stupid statement, nor any science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Are you all bluff and bluster, AJ?.
What does “Good-bye” mean in your lexicon? I though it meant we had heard the last of the village idiot.
As to your “dishonest question” remark, you say:” I'm not saying that I didn't, I just can't find it.”. You do not know what you said, do you?, and can’t find it. I know what you said, and I am not going to look for it. I have repeated it many times, over the years, as an example of the mentality of a fraud backer.

The village idiot said:” seem to have ditched your "evidence" regarding the Carboniferous period pretty quickly now”. His reading comprehension is poor. I merely said that his search had produced a better result than his choice, which was the misleading site on climate science run by the unqualified cartoonist. I was not making any point about it, which seems to have escaped the attention of the idiot. He also referred to me as a fellow legal practitioner. I am not a legal practitioner and never represented myself so to be. I doubt that AJP is a legal practitioner. Even the most immature one would not make the remark:” As a fellow practitioner of the law, I hope you don't argue like this in court. I'd have you for breakfast.”

Oh, I agree with you SteeleRedux. I didn’t mean to imply that Leo doesn’t actually believe any of the abusive rubbish he spouts, but sometimes people can lie in such a way so as to not completely and consciously understand that that is what they are doing.

More to the point, though, my suggestion that Leo lied was more aimed at the suggestion that I had to “high-tail it out of there” when the going got rough, when in fact, I have actually answered his stupid question regarding the evidence for the human influence on climate change in a debate that I had once had with that racist loser, LEGO. I linked LEGO to articles dating back as far as 1885 that demonstrated that our CO2 emissions could have a big influence on the planet’s climate.

To that extent, I guess I’m just giving ol’ Leo a little more rope…

Leo,

I note that you still have not quoted where I said what you had alleged what I had said.

Again, not saying that I didn’t, but the longer it takes you to link us back to my alleged claim, the more it appears that you are simply and aggressive little… person who doesn’t always tell the truth.

<<Even the most immature [legal practitioner] would not make the remark:” As a fellow practitioner of the law, I hope you don't argue like this in court. I'd have you for breakfast.”>>

Ah, but we’re not in court now, are we sunshine?

In fact, I’m starting to doubt that you’re even a lawyer with a silly remark like that. So tell us, Leo, what are the elements of s 4 of the Queensland Criminal Code and what are their tests?

Let’s see who really is the liar here, shall we?

Apparently the village idiot practices in Queensland, and his question indicates he is in the criminal jurisdiction.
I practised for 53 years in Sydney, in commercial law and commercial litigation. The Queensland lawyers with whom I dealt, would not have made the unprofessional remark made by AJP, but that does not prove that he is not a lawyer, just that, if he is, he is very immature, and unprofessional.
If it helps yourconveniently poor memory, AJ your assertion was that a friend of yours, who purported to know something of climate science had told you that I had asked a “dishonest question”, so to that extent you distanced yourself from the stupid remark. Nevertheless, you posted it, and earned the title of village idiot.If you think I will waste my time trying to find it, you have earned the title again. You do not deny that you said it, because you know it can surface any time, but you have the temerity to suggest that I may be lying.
I asked that you refer us to science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Robert Carter’s comments, which I posted on this thread, show that there is no such science, and you come up with the lame:”“demonstrated that our CO2 emissions could have a big influence on the planet’s climate.”. Could have? Might have?What scientifically baseless, ineffectual nonsence
That is as bad and ineffective as the duplicitous IPCC claim, that the human effect is 95% certain.
As Robert Carter said, the assertion is a failed hypothesis.

I was waiting for you to nitpick over jurisdiction, Leo. All states have their statute and case law accessible. So saying that you practiced in NSW isn't an excuse.

I still note, too, that you cannot provide a link to this alledged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual.

You realy don'tvhave anything, do you?

What a weak response, AJ. You buckle easily, don’t you? I practised commercial law, not criminal law.
Anyone can ask pointless questions. Refer me to the Corporate law prohibiting a company from supplying the funds for issue of shares in that company.
You still feign inability to remember, but you are not very good at it. Your inability to deny it is a dead give-away.

I was incorrect in my memory. You said it was “deceitful”. not “dishonest”. It was in a thread on the perversion of the definition of “marriage” to accommodate homosexual relationships.He purported to be reporting a comment of his homosexual brother in law
His comment was:
“he had a bit of a chuckle because of how it is deceitfully framed, according to him.”

My comment on this was:” All that nonsense, AJPhillips and no explanation as to why global warming has stopped, when the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. I do not have to “deny” your science. It has been proven not to work.
The point of the real science is that the human effect is trivial and not measurable. How does your brother-in-law work out that my question is “deceitful”? Ask him if it is as deceitful as falsely representing that the links you give are to the science showing a measurable effect 0f human emissions on climate?
What is this supposed to mean:” we can know that humans are affecting it due to the fact that the last time this much much CO2 entered the atmosphere this quickly, the earth was a lot more volatile with a lot of volcanic activity.”.I think it means that he has no idea, but would like to sound as if he does, by talking nonsense. Much like you in the last para of your post. You talk gibberish there because you are embarrassed at what a fool you have made of yourself
I do not expect that science will work out a way to measure the trivial effect of human emissions on climate. They would be more likely to be able to find a cure for homosexuality.. If it is not measurable it is not scientifically noticed, so the science is that human emissions have no effect on climate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 7 June 2015 12:52:06

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371&page=0#307439

Phillips posted the idiotic comment, so earned the stage name “the village idiot”. The flaw in my recollection does not affect the situation, as "deceitful" is at least as idiotic as "dishonest"

Ah more name-calling, Leo? You really have nothing, do you?

You do resort to the ad hominem fallacy incessantly. ant is "flea", I'm now the "the village idiot". Hey, how about I call you "the knob jockey"? Then we're even, right? I mean, who then could possibly determine which one of us was right, and which one of us was wrong? At lease according to your fallacious logic, apparently.

Your name-calling demonstrates a special sort of immaturity. Don't you think?

The previous post from the village idiot contained this baseless abuse of myself:
“ou cannot provide a link to this alledged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual.”.

So I satisfied him with proof as to his earning of the status of “village idiot”, and now he is whining and working out retaliation by way of name-calling, believe it or not.
Of course, he can go ahead and make an even bigger fool of himself, but he is almost out of stunts to make more of an idiot of himself. His name was earned from his stupid behaviour, while he wants to inflict one on me based purely on his intemperate idiocy. He does have an alternative. He could wake up to himself and stop behaving like an immature idiot.
He could also learn how to spell” alleged”, it might be handy for a criminal lawyer
He could apologise for his false allegation, against me, of lies. That is how synchronicity works. He lied, and the proof bobbed up with little effort from me. I do not know whose effort it was, but thanks anyway.

Leo,

I only said, "...you cannot provide a link to this alleged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual", after you failed twice to point me to where I had said that your question was dishonest.

I even qualified my question both times with, "...not saying that I didn’t [say that]", because I thought there was a possibility that I might have, and if so, wanted to make sure you weren't misrepresenting what I had said.

It's nothing but lies and deceit with you, isn't it Leo?

VI If you can show any lie, by me, please do so. I understand the false accusation of abuse, because you falsely categorise my truthful description of your behaviour as abuse. You are nevertheless lying.
I had already told you that I would not be searching for the link, and knew that your story of your failed memory was untrue. You knew that you had said it, and took the precaution of not denying it.

Now we're reading minds to keep up the lies and deceit. The one who has earned himself the title of "knob jockey" (and somehow by fiat of my own name-calling (That's how it works, isn't it?)) is a hoot!

(But that name-calling didn't feel good. Given your abusive ways, it should come as no surprise to me that you are fine with it, however.)

Keep it going, Leo. It should have been apparent to you long ago that I don't take you seriously at all, just as I suspect no-one else here does either. You are nothing more than an aggressive, nasty piece of work. You must be very unhappy in life.

I'd feel sorry for you if it weren't for the fact that you are such an aggressive, nasty piece of work.

The village idiot has really cornered himself. He cannot substantiate his lies, and tries to load me with a ridiculous, baseless name. If he was making up names for a living, he would starve, but his attempt gives us a glimpse of his turgid mentality. The pathetic village idiot. Feel sorry for yourself, you clown.
When my grandson stops laughing, I'll see if he thinks this post is right to go, so he can go back to his homework.

https://eos.org/meeting-reports/paleofires-and-models-illuminate-future-fire-scenarios

knob jockey says: “I don't take you seriously at all, just as I suspect no-one else here does either. “
Is that right, knob jockey, or are you lying again?
What about the whining, lying ignoramus, the flea, the reason you are in this mess? You made a fool of yourself to show that you did not take it seriously?
Your name is now knob jockey, because I do not let nasty names go to waste, when there are people who deserve them. So Keating is Slimebucket, the name he coined, and Mungo McCallum is the unflushable turd. I am not familiar with your term, but it sounds rotten, and you have earned it, knob jockey.

You just can't let it go, can you Leo?

Even as someone who appears to think that if they get the last word in, then that means they've won the argument, you still have to come back when you don't get a bite.

Have I rubbed you the wrong way, or do you just like a bit of back and forth with someone who you think will play your childish name-calling games?

I like that you like my “knob jockey” insult. The fact that you’re old and don’t know what it means makes it particularly funny. I bet that’s why your grandson was laughing last night. His poor ol’ grandpa had been called such a vulgar and funny-sounding name, completely unaware of what it implied. Just like an old lady carrying around a sex toy asking everyone if anyone had lost their vibrating massage roller. You oldies are so sweet and innocent sometimes. I had hoped your grandson enjoyed that one.

I won’t say outright what a knob jockey is (you can Google the precise definition yourself), but let’s just say that “knob” is another term for the head of a penis.

Oh boy. I’m just about wetting myself here! This is gold.

I do not give a stuff what it means. I have read enough in your post, to realize what a low character you are, quite apart from your gratuitous lying.You have come up with such a disgusting name, that I will not use it.
You have ignored my request to identify any lie I have told, and you are uncivil enough and gutless enough to simply ignore the question, like your whining little ignoramus mate, the flea.
I will address you as “grub” hereafter, you untruthful, evasive, pusillanimous little shonk

Apparently you do “give a stuff”, Leo. Else why would you refuse to use it?

But trying to take the moral high-ground after showing yourself to be such an abusive person? That’s a bit rich.

<<You have ignored my request to identify any lie I have told…>>

Indeed I have.

One example was the mind-reading you engaged in several days ago. Now, strictly speaking, this probably wasn’t a lie because you may not have known that it wasn’t true when you said it. But neither could Gillard necessarily when she made her ‘no carbon tax’ promise, yet you conservatives had a field day with that one. So I figure, what’s good for one is good for all. I will call it the “Gillard lie”. You Gillard-lied.

In a more general sense, you have had your silly questions answered so many times on OLO now that your repeating of the assertions behind them can be dubbed lies. Either that or you are utterly delusional.

You continuously prattle on about an alleged fraud which would be so grand in scale that it would dwarf any other conspiracy theory. You also claim that CO2 has little-to-no effect on climate, yet scientists have known otherwise for 120 years:

‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’ (1896): http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

‘On the Question of Carbon Dioxide Heat Radiation in the Atmosphere’ (1960): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02001111

‘Is Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Changing Man’s Environment?’ (1969): http://davidmlawrence.com/Woods_Hole/References/Keeling_1970_CarbonDioxide_FossilFuel.pdf

‘Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect’ (1972): http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf

They're a lot better than your unreferenced, cherry-picked denialist blogs, don’t ya think?

This so-called “fraud” must have been going on for a long time, eh Leo? One-hundred-and-twenty years, to be precise.

But what I’m mostly interested in is the fallacies you engage in. The ad hominem seems to be a favourite of yours when faced with evidence that kicks the cognitive dissonance into overdrive. You also used the God of the Gaps fallacy on that other thread, as I had pointed out there.

Fallacies, aggression, abuse, and one big conspiracy theory. That's all you have.

Yes, grub, no science to show any measurable human effect on global climate, just irrelevant material, like the flea.

The grub says: “a lot better than your unreferenced, cherry-picked denialist blogs, don’t ya think?”
Of course not, grub, As Carter pointed out, the hypothesis of human caused global warming has failed. Did you not read the summary of the science by Robert Carter which I posted?. Is that why you post irrelevant science to support your nonsense?
Carter said:” However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
The grub says: This so-called “fraud” must have been going on for a long time, eh Leo? One-hundred-and-twenty years, to be precise..
What is the relevance of this pointless statement? Whenever it is asserted that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate, it is as you know, unsupported by science. Carbon dioxide has an effect, but the IPCC supporters have been unable to demonstrate how it works, and have made assertions shown to be incorrect, but they continue to make assertions about the effect of human emissions which they know by empirical observation to be unsupported by science. People like you support these fraudulent statements. Can you tell me why?
You cannot substantiate your scurrilous assertion that I lied, and you have no reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate globally
What a loser.

Like I said, Leo, all you have is fallacies, aggression, abuse, and one big conspiracy theory. You haven't even bothered to defend your God of the Gaps fallacy on the other thread.

If you can address me without the name-calling, and in a civil tone, I will be more than happy to answer your questions. I suspect your inability to do this is why no-one has bothered to answer such simple questions from you in the past.

I don't think you can do it.

response to A J Phillips assertion:” If you can address me without the name-calling, and in a civil tone, I will be more than happy to answer your questions. “
Excuse me A J Phillips, there are some relevant questions which I would like you to answer, at your earliest convenience:
1. What science are you able to reference which demonstrates a measurable human effect on global climate?
2. . Of what instances of a computer model being correct in its prediction of global warming, can you inform us?
3. Why did global warming stop for more than 19 years at a time when the atmospheric content of CO2 had increased.

Thanks, Leo. That was a lot better.

First off, I’m certainly no climate expert. I do, however, know of many denialist arguments, and why they are wrong. Arguments like, “But it was cold today!”, “They can’t even predict the weather accurately a few days in advance…”, “But CO2 is good for plants”, and (my personal favourite) the Climategate saga.

1. I suspect this question is like a creationist asking someone if they have personally witnessed one species in evolve into another - a question that expects not only the impossible, but the unnecessary.

I don’t know if there is a precise measurement, and the number of factors that would need to be taken into account would be mind-boggling. I suspect that no matter what I give you, you will commit the Moving the Goalposts fallacy and insist on the impossible, such as a precise algorithm (which would have to change on a monthly basis even it was possible to come up with one.)

Here’s an article that should answer your question:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

Here’s a whole lot that discuss the effects of carbon emissions:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=human-induced+carbon+emissions+climate+change&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Here’s a whole heap that discuss the effects of deforestation:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=deforestation+climate+change

Always check Google Scholar first if you want reliable, scholarly, and peer-reviewed research (you certainly won’t find any denialist blogs there - surprise, surprise). A standard Google search won’t necessarily provide you with results that are reliable.

Take your pick from the thousands of results in those Google Scholar searches. If you can’t find any papers with measurements precise enough for your liking, then they may, together, give you sufficient information to devise your own algorithm.

But I don’t think you’re really interested in answers. If you were, then you would contact a qualified scientist or follow the references to the information you read back and back until you arrive at the original data source (denialist blogs won’t provide you with the means to do that though, funnily enough). Instead, I suspect you are more interested in stumping laymen with questions that you mistake for trump cards in order to reinforce an already-unshakable belief.

Continued…

…Continued

2. None. Because I don’t know about any of the models in any great detail.

Two things I do know, however, is that, firstly, the science is not dependent on the existence of models; and secondly, thinking that the science is dependent on models is one of the many mistakes that deniers make. They seem to think that if they can point to flaws in them, then the whole theory comes crashing down. It doesn’t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco)

(The above video was done by Peter Hadfield - the guy who debated Monckton on Anthony Watts’ blog, until Monckton’s arguments were being trashed so devastatingly that Watts cut the debate short and threatened to ban anyone who mentioned it.)
3. As far as I know, it didn’t. This is one of the many denialist internet myths that gets passed around.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming

And even if it did, it would hardly be surprising given how many factors influence climate and how complex the interplay between them is. What’s important is long-term trends. Furthermore, no denialist worth their salt still claims that there is a hiatus after the last several years.

While, again, I’m not an expert, I’m quite happy to accept the consensus among the relevant scientists if only for the reason that I have not yet seen a denialist come up with an argument that either doesn’t demonstrate an elementary misunderstanding (such as the difference between weather and climate), or isn’t an internet myth that has been debunked over and over again.

The inconsistency among denialists isn’t a good sign either. There seems to be five forms of denialism:

1. There is no warming;
2. It’s warming but CO2 is not a factor
3. It’s warming and CO2 is a factor, but we don’t know what our contribution is.
4. It’s warming and CO2 is a factor, but our contribution is immeasurably small.
5. It’s warming and we’re the cause, but there’s nothing we can do about it;

It never ceases to amaze me how often the same individual will switch between each of these, and sometimes even in the same discussion.

Thanks, AJ.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. As Carter has pointed out, it has not been possible to show the human contribution, because,despite a huge outlay of funds on research it has not been separated.from the total warming Knowing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%, the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable. Not being measurable, there is no scientific basis upon which to assert its existence. When Combet was Minister for Labor Lies about sea levels, he lived in a waterfront house which he bought at Newcastle.
When he urinated in the ocean, near his house, he polluted the sea, but it was trivial, and not measurable, so there was no scientific basis to assert the pollution. The human effect on climate is identifiable locally,but, so far, not globally, and is not measurable, so there is no scientific basis to assert a human effect on global warming. For this reason the correct answer to my question is that there is no such science because the human effect on climate is local., has not been shown to be global,and is trivial and not measurable

Dear AJ Phillips,

Although Loopy is one of our 'less open to intelligent debate' members of the fringe anti-AGW lot I have been asked by others about variants of his 'human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%' line.

I have found this video is quite a good answer. Anyone with half a brain seems to be able to grasp the concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ9hPl9dl98

Leo,

When I first read your response, I thought to myself, "Did he not check a single link I provided?"

Then I read this contradictory statement again, and it hit me.

<<Knowing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%, the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable.>>

It's not that you don't think there's any way of measuring the human contribution to climate change, it's that you think that our contribution to CO2 (and, presumably, our impact on climate change) is insignificant. Okay. That’s very different from our contribution not being measurable.

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is. Finding one in the literature is understandably difficult. I suspect that's because stating an actual percentage would be oversimplifying things, like putting a number on someone’s IQ (your oversimplified claim, for example, fails to take into account the additional effects of deforestation - clearly you didn't check any of the links I provided). I've heard denialists cite figures anywhere between 3-10%.

But even if it were only 1%, it wouldn't matter. Nature maintains a cycle of adding and removing CO2 from the atmosphere that balances itself out. Human activity, on the other hand, adds CO2 without removing any, so there’s a gradual build up.

So your argument is invalid, as is your ‘urination’ analogy.

SteelRedux,

Thanks for the link. It goes into what I've touched on above to Leo in a lot more detail. I would recommend it to Leo if I thought it would make the slightest difference. But alas...

Leo
We have NASA who have placed men on the moon and sent a capsule to Pluto and beyond who support the view of anthropogenic climate change. Quite heroic to dispute their science.

We have scientists able to differentiate the origin of isotopes of carbon.
We have the 11 year ARM that showed how IR and CO2 react.
The latest report indicates the interaction of IR with greenhouse gases, 2.974 Watts per square meter has been created, per:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

Computer modelling by scientists working for ExxonMobil were able to comprehensively show the future degree of sea ice breakdown in the Arctic Ocean through their modelling in the 1980s.

Oceans have been warming, temperature has been going up according to satellite measure.
Land based weather stations (from memory something like 10,000 of them) show temperature increasing.

The amount of melting in the Arctic is a huge worry.

By the way, there are now more jurisdictions which are investigating ExxonMobil for alleged criminal behaviour. The allegations stem from misleading financial markets by financing denier groups while their scientists were stating that man has an influence on climate.

Fossil fuels take millions of years to store carbon; we take a few moments to disperse it in a geological sense.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/05/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-deg-c/

NASA might have put a man on the moon, flea, but it was never able to control the climate liar, Hansen.
“Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled”
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/james-hansen%E2%80%99s-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-%E2%80%98embarrassed-nasa%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98was-never-muzzled%E2%80%99-models-%E2%80%98useless%E2%80%99/
You still have no relevant science, flea.
An important part of the finding against the climate scientists you seem to have overlooked or concealed:"Commission may, at its own discretion, accept or reject the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation and that said recommendation has no legal effect unless expressly adopted by the Commission as its final order.
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={F3F2D025-2BA9-45F9-9F78-6AFAE4DD6345}&documentTitle=201512-116525-02

Leo

NASA states very clearly that man has had involvement in creating climate change; yet, you ask us to believe you know better.

The Watts reference is nicely dressed up; but goes back to 2009 and is very meaningless in 2016. Hansen is one climate scientist among several thousands; yet, you insult him by calling him a liar. But then, anybody who does not agree with you is abused. Watts states that the Arctic isn't regressing, which is very very wrong.

Something of interest, the US Navy projected that there was a possibility that 2016 was a year when there could be open ocean in the Arctic. Currently, the level of sea ice is the lowest it has ever been since measuring began by satellite; the sea ice is in a very vulnerable state. A severe weather pattern has been forecast for the next week; yet, already the amount of sea ice being lost is extremely high. Already there have been multiple days of 100,000 square kilometer loss of sea ice per day.

The reference provided is much older than usually provided, it states there is a possibility of the Arctic being ice free this year. Presently, it appears that it could happen.

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/article_f0d1fc46-56dc-11e3-9766-001a4bcf6878.html

The flea states:”NASA states very clearly that man has had involvement in creating climate change”
So you still have no reference to science, flea, to show any measurable human effect on climate, just this stupid statement, which you say was given by NASA. Even if NASA made this baseless assertion, why would we believe NASA..
Before deciding, we might consider
:” Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’
The astonishing results are now available online to the public. P Gosselin of notrickzone.com reports:
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

;Your search for climate liars like NASA is endless, isn’t it, flea, but there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there flea? You also referred us to NOAA, another acknowledged climate liar. How about facing the truth, flea, and stop fraud promoting?

Leo

Non peer reviewed blogs which cut across what is accepted by the vast majority of scientists are pretty meaningless.
You say that NASA lies, NOAA lie, the US Navy must lie too; as I gave a reference to their prognosis that in 2016 the Arctic Ocean could be in a sea ice free state; it was proclaimed as a remote possibility. But, it is quite clear that unless there is a huge turn around in weather patterns; then at least the 2012 record low sea ice extent record more likely than not will be broken.

I have given references to science many times; because you say it is not science, does not make it so.
I have given references to how the origin of CO2 can be identified by its isotopes.
Many times I've referred to the 11 year ARM study which was set up at two locations and studied the relationship between CO2 and IR.

Leo, I do very little research, the information received, in the main, comes via email or to my Facebook page.

But, right now it is rather immaterial whether man has created a changing climate; it is happening and we need to do something.

Reflux says: one of our 'less open to intelligent debate'”. This is tantamount to an assertion by Reflux that he supplies intelligent debate. What a misrepresentation of the garbage he posts, like reference to the video of Gavin Crawley the out of work comedian, with no science qualifications, who talks rubbish,about CO2 with cartoonist drawn flags in the background of the video. He raises the nonsense of natural “sinks”, which of course makes no difference to the magnitude of the contribution by nature of 97% of CO2.against a paltry 3% by humans . He talks about his wife taking money out of the bank, because, like Reflux, he has no science to support his dishonest anti-science garbage. He puts forward no basis which qualifies him to present his input.

Here is a more convincing video about the ridiculous global warming scare :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

Reflux disappeared when asked to give a source and justification of his lies about Robert Carter. As is his craven custom, when questioned about his false statements, he disappeared into his rodent-hole
Reflux stigmatised Carter’s unassailable science as “proven falsehoods”. Where were the “falsehoods” proven, Reflux? Did you compose this lie yourself, or do you have a source for it, among your fraud promoting sources?
This is the second time I have asked you about this lie, Reflux.

Leo

I watched part of your film clip.

A few points:

Data from satellites processed by Drs Christy and Spencer are showing an increase in temperature. Satellite data needs to be processed and they are up to Mark VI with their programs.

The lowest ever sea ice extent in the Arctic was measured in 2012, the clip I gather was published in 2014.
Currently for the time of year the sea ice extent in the Arctic is at a record low since satelitte records began.

Miami periodically is flooded when there are king tides and no weather patterns to explain the flooding. It has been happening at other South Eastern coastal areas.

Tropical Cyclone Haiyan hitting the Phillipines has been the biggest storm ever to be experienced in recorded history.

The Mississippi/ Missouri out of season floods were huge.

The South Carolina floods had water flow above the tops of flood measuring poles in a few areas.

The Iditarod Dog sled race has been occurring for decades, problems have arisen in running the race through lack of ice and snow on a number of occasions in the 21 century.

He might be right about lack of deaths from heat stroke in the US; absolutely wrong on a global scale.

Lately people have been dying from heat stroke in India, Hospitals were over run last year with heat stroke victims. Presently there is drought in South East Asia, should the monsoon season for 2016 be like the last two then starvation for millions will be a result.

Last year in the US people were outside wearing T shirts at Christmas time; not long after they were hit by huge snow falls; many snow fields in Western States struggled due to lack of snow.