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.