“And that people keep referring to the magic 97 per cent figure, as though it means something, is to me a sign of a closed mind and a quasi-religious belief in the scare. Such people seem to me intellectually lost souls.”

It is indeed difficult to fathom why so many believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming, as there is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate that assertion that could be regarded pseudo-science at best.

The 97% consensus of climate scientists is a lie. It is a disgraceful case of intellectual dishonesty. The study that gained attention was done by John Cook, owner of Skeptical Science and originator of the online course on "climate science denial" available through edX. The 'research' for the 97% consensus was done by Cook's 12 apostles - friends and colleagues who write for and comment on Skeptical Science. They ''reviewed" 12,000 abstracts. One researcher reviewed about 1 per minute. 'Tick and flick' would be a better description.

Cook and the University of Queensland tried to prevent the data being released. However, someone managed to get it and it is now publicly available. It shows that Cook and his mates grossly distorted and lied about the results. They claimed 97% consensus. However, the truth is that only 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts "explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of the recent global warming". Theat is 0.5% consensus, not 97% consensus. You can see the table of the results here:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/slide12.png
You can read about it here: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

This is as dishonest as the ClimateGate revealed is common practice among many of the climate scientists, IPCC Coordinating Authors and Lead Authors and Editors of the science journals.

Just like the dishonest scientist who know the evolution fantasy is just that, the warmest know that funding and promotion is tied to nodding your head to such nonsense. Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull will only ever act as to where they sniff a pat on the back from the corrupt UN or populist opinion. What ever happened to the biggest moral dilemma of the century. Anyone interested in the integrity of true science must cringe when they hear the rot the warmest carry on with. Abbots crass assessment of gw being cr_p is probably the most accurate and scientific. There is still no real evidence to the contrary. oh that's right the heat is now hiding in the ocean. give is a break.

The argument about whether 97% of climate scientists believe the consensus view is rather academic. It is fair to say that the vast majority do. There are very few papers published by skeptical scientists in peer reviewed journals.

Nature takes no notice of the consensus view; whether its 90%, 95%, 97% or 99%.

On the news at present is that 90+% of the Great Barrier Reef has been hit by coral bleaching.
No scientist has stated that the bleaching has not happened.
Sampling of coral from the GBR shows that there have been no such bleaching events over hundreds of years previously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJVh4bpj3dE&ebc=ANyPxKp9wPAvuyazummStZtOeJKTnT-r7qyJv-g0Y9Bd7EZNLUPMgj8Q_LK4je37NCnCuftiRF6gj9nYceRYeFIjD8-0jOqaTw

Rain bombs have just recently gone off in Huston; even the models used by Meteorologists were not able to forecast the actual amount of rain that fell, modelling under predicted the amount of rainfall.
Warming waters have impacted on fish farming off the Tasmanian East Coast, the warming has been noticed for some years. Tassal has reduced production. The amount of rainfall received by Tasmania is still a worry. Along with drought and bushfires, Tasmania was rain bombed in January.

The tilt of the Earth's axis has just changed a little, the reason given being the loss of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. The melt season for ice melting from Greenland has begun weeks earlier than normal.
There had been huge flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers out of season; North and South Carolina had huge floods all within the last year.
A major report has recently been published about the problems faced by the West Coast of the USA through warming waters over the last few years.

The list goes on and on over the last years.

We need to do something about climate change, especially in low lying areas prone to flooding or storm surges. Whether man created or otherwise, it is happening.

Ant, your observations of climate change effects are noted.

However, conspicuous by its absence, is the empirical scientific evidence necessary to justify your assertion that the climate change was man-caused.

Unless you can come up with that evidence, you are not adding to the discussion.

ant
Quote "It is fair to say that the vast majority do." is that a verifiable fact or you opinion?

coral bleaching. What is your point, if you are saying it is caused by people where is your evidence?

Quote "The list goes on and on over the last years." The list may go on in your opinion but where is the categorical proof of the cause?

Obviously it would not occur to you that someone may lie to be the beneficiary of hundreds of billions of dollars. For example the scientists in grants, Al Gore and his cronies selling carbon credits etc.

Wasn't it Al Gore years ago who said in parts of America you will not see any snow in the future, Yes it was but recently they are having record amounts of snow.

Lastly when a Government has to legislate penalties against people who are climate deniers that says it is BS.

Dear Don,
You have wandered into Climate Change, again. I have noticed with your past entries to this land that your logic and understanding is left at the gate, or perhaps there was nothing to leave.

Now, before you climb up to the current levels of worldwide understanding, you should contemplate findings made in the 1800s. The basic science was settled and agreed when Nobel Laureate Arhennius calculated at the end of the 1800s that a doubling of CO2 concentration could increase average temperature by 4C to 5C.

You can verify this in Wikipedia. While there, if not too bamboozled by so much scientific understanding, you could search for earlier climate science findings from Fourier, Herschel, Tyndall. You will find, but probably wont understand, that the phrase "greenhouse gas" was first used in the 1800s, that CO2 was found to absorb Infra Red radiation, and that, if there were no atmospheric CO2, Earth's average temperature would be around -20C.

If you have trouble understanding this 1800s science, I would recommend that you wander over hills counting golden daffodils.

I posted some of the below on a previous post but it is worth restating.

Between 1880 and 2015 the global average temperature has changed from ~288 degrees Kelvin to ~288.8 degrees Kelvin, this represents an increase of just 0.3%. Is this significant? No, it is not even worth worrying about. This science does not lie, but the political 'climate change or global warming' mantra has become like a religion and is therefore sold as undeniable, it's just plain madness.

There is clear evidence of yearly spikes in temperature, i.e, the mean global average temperature was significantly higher than years prior/following, for example 1907/08, 1940/41, 1997/98, 2000/01 and 2015/16 (I am citing from memory, I think there was an additional set but I can't remember which years), the last three set coincidence with significant global coral bleaching so. I would surmise, but don't have any evidence to support coral bleaching in the 1907/08 or 1940/41 times.

The hysteria surrounding the current bleaching events is typical of those attempting to state we are on some sort of runaway climate disaster, we are not and there is no scientific evidence, that I am aware of, which justifies this stance.

There is climate change, and yes it is slowly warming, but you need to look much longer than the timeframe since the inception of the industrial revolution. Over the past few thousand years we have had a predominantly warming climate, with minor cooling periods in between. This is natural climate variability and the sooner people understand this the better.

Cheers
Geoff

Don reminds me of the only soldier in step amongst a hundred of his fellows.

He and those head buriers, who routinely support him ignore the fact that the great solar furnace in the sky ,has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies.(NASA)

Even if this is something other than man made warming; and anyone but the seriously intellectually challenged, confronted by evidence like the melting tundra; the absence for the first time in living memory of summer sea ice of the coast of alaska, brand new melt water lakes in the aforementioned, all showing evidence of melting formerly frozen methane bubbling to the surface. Would have to conclude real climate change is happening!

And just not down to the great Solar furnace in the sky!

And how could we be hurt by adopting carbon free or carbon neutral energy alternatives that are half or quarter of what we are being asked to shell out now? Well? Cat got your tongue?

Simply put, a transition to vastly cheaper alternative energy would have quite massive economic upsides!

[Which oil advocates like Don self evidently don't want and for the most fundamental of self serving reasons?]

Imagine trolley buses/trains powered by magnetic interfaces via underground mats silently and smoothly move commuters, without any exhaust fumes of any kind polluting our atmosphere. A disastrous outcome for the 4 trillion dollar P.A. fossil fuel industry!

I can park the telsa in the garage or carpark and the solar cells and battery wall powered magnetic mat will charge the batteries while I sleep, without so much as a single shilling being transferred to a fossil fuel mogul. Ditto most of the car owning public and in the next fifteen or so years?

And Don's real lament and the very transparent reason for his fossil fuel funded fatuous furore/broken record rhetoric?
Rhrosty.

Raychem and Phillip S

At the end of my earlier comment I made the statement:

We need to do something about climate change, especially in low lying areas prone to flooding or storm surges. Whether man created or otherwise, it is happening.
We go around in circles in relation to discussion of climate change, it is happening.

Phillip S, while the Eastern States of the US were having record levels of snow, it was the complete opposite situation for the Western States.

Whether climate happens through natural variation or through human activity, there are issues of:
availability of water resources
flooding
temperatures reaching such heights that they are deadly for vulnerable people
Agriculture
placement of infra-structure

'Consensus' means agreement and has nothing to do with science. This much-touted 97% is not made up of scientists at all; it is made up of non-scientific urgers, rent-seekers and liars in the IPCC, and the re-newable energy myth-makers' group who are ripping off stupid governments and tax payers.

ttbn

Let's just let climate change; whether man created, partly man created, or caused through normal long cycles; rip. We can watch more lives lost and billions of dollars worth of infra-structure and property go down the drain.

The flea says “Whether man created or otherwise,”
You know that it is not man created, flea, as you have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so why continue with your dishonest nonsense?

The flea gives a misleading description of the state of the Great Barrier Reef, which over the years has often bleached and recovered.
The clown on the you tube referenced by the flea talked about the “destruction” of the reef, which is nonsense, and did a promotion of the climate fraud, asserting that human emissions should be curtailed. Of course the flea would only reference a liar, because who else would support his baseless fraud promotion?
Fortunately there was some honest reporting:
“A senior scientist says coral on the Great Barrier Reef is more resilient than many people think.
The current coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef has attracted major media coverage and attention from senior political leaders.
But Dr David Wachenfeld, the Director for Reef Recovery at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says coral’s ability to recover from bleaching is being left out of the discussion.

While images of fields of bone-white coral may paint a grim picture to viewers, Dr Wachenfeld says coral can withstand significant amounts of stress.
“Its also important to remember that ‘bleached’ does not always mean ‘dead’,” he says.
“if the level of stress the coral is under improves, the coral can re-accept zooxanthellae from the water column or promote the reproduction of zooxanthellae that remain in the polyps.”
https://northernbeachesnews.net/2016/03/27/bleaching-not-a-death-sentence-for-great-barrier-reef/
"Destruction of the Reef" has been done to death flea, so everyone is aware that it is nonsense, and dishonest.

Leo Lane: “Fortunately there was some honest reporting:
“A senior scientist says coral on the Great Barrier Reef is more resilient than many people think. The current coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef has attracted major media coverage and attention from senior political leaders.
But Dr David Wachenfeld, the Director for Reef Recovery at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says coral’s ability to recover from bleaching is being left out of the discussion.”

It is indeed rare to get honest reporting about our Great Barrier Reef that has allegedly been condemned to death by human-caused global warming. As recently as yesterday morning, ABC News Radio served up a reef death-sentence diatribe by Greens Senator Larissa Waters

Anybody seen that sod, AJ Phillips around here, someplace?

Damn, looks like I have seen another trendy lefty off. AJ, where aaaaaarrrrrrre yoooouuuu? Cmon boy. You can't keep ducking this global warming debate any longer. I've got you by the short and curlies and hiding won't save you.

This whole climate change crap is blowing up on your face and it is just another example of how you trendy lefties get everything wrong. Time to jump ship and get with the intelligent people.

Take your seat next to the creationist Don.

The flea says:” The argument about whether 97% of climate scientists believe the consensus view is rather academic. It is fair to say that the vast majority do.”
This is an assertion that the majority of climate scientists are ignorant, or liars
If they do not know that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, they are ignorant. If they do know, but support the assertion that global warming is human caused, they are liars.
You could not disagree, could you, flea?

Present hype in news about Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching is timed to promote signing of the Paris climate agreement.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4447275.htm

There is dead coral just about everywhere in the world and worsening, coinciding with devastation of the whole world ocean environment.

Consider a few examples of what is happening.

Chile Dec 2015.
337 whales dead:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/chile-337-whales-beached-stranding

Chile March 2016.
23 million salmon dead:
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/10/salmon-dead-toxic-algal-bloom-chile/

Argentina Oct 2015.
Largest die off of whales ever recorded. N.B. Algae cannot increase without adequate nutrient:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/29/algal-blooms-whale-die-off/

Whole world ocean fish stocks were thought to be inexhaustible LOL:
http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf

Sewage and land use nutrient overload-pollution proliferating algae is the fundamental cause of devastated coral and seagrass food web nurseries.

Invasive algae takes up available oxygen, causing small or large dead zones that suffocate the coral polyp animal and the zooxanthellae algae at night and under dense cloud when photosynthesis is not occurring, when plant life consumes oxygen instead of producing it.

Animals including fish do not breed successfully during food shortage, good reason why over 30 years of fishing restrictions and worldwide EEZ's have fundamentally failed to prevent ongoing whole world ocean fish and ecosystem devastation, including coral ecosystems.

Solutions?
Don't just focus on emissions involving air pollution.
Urgently reduce the sewage nutrient loading being dumped in ocean ecosystem currents daily.

Here we go again, wasting time & effort on AGW !

It does not matter whether global warming is real or not.
The solution to global warming is promoted as being
leave oil & coal in the ground.
Well, if you have not noticed less CO2 is being put into the air
than previously each year.
The reason, oil demand is falling and coal consumption while rising
is costing more.
Any new sources of oil are at very expensive costs.
Deloitte predicts 30 to 50 percent of oil & oil service companies
will go bankrupt THIS YEAR !

The largest coal company Peabody is already bankrupt this year.
The major oil companies have spent Two Trillion dollars on oil search
and do not look like getting it back from production.
The crux of the matter is our economies can not afford the cost of
new energy. Once the mix of new & old exceeds the Goldilocks price
then we are in real trouble.

We need an urgent push for base load power. We know solar & wind
cannot do it on its own, we cannot afford to cover multiple overcast
still days, so be it nuclear or something new it needs urgent attention.

Percentage percentage percentage wrong wrong wrong, if you look into the following 'news' and comments. LOL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/20/and-then-we-wept-scientists-say-93-percent-of-the-great-barrier-reef-now-bleached/

Ahh, I haven't been here for a while but it is a little nostalgic to see the wilfully ignorant, and the determinately delusional, accelerating their anti AGW rhetoric in the face of record global temperatures.

However the tactic of turning up the volume when the facts are staring you in the face serves to accentuate the what a collection of buffoons the anti AGW lot have become.

I'm sure even as their ranks dwindle there will always be little cohorts of holdouts in places like OLO. Just as the Flat Earth Society still very much exists today http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ it will be become a place for our next generation to visit and chortle at the quirky collection of cantankerous blowhards who were so hell bent on ignoring the bleeding obvious.

Don Aitkin set out to rebut the claim that 97 per cent of climate scientists support three propositions: that the earth is warming, this is caused by human activities and is dangerous. He uses statistics on papers from climate scientists to say that there is not widespread support for the propositions. But scientific papers do not set out to test such broad questions, so it is not surprising that few such papers are found.

It can be difficult to accept unpleasant advice from experts, but it is not productive to ignore it. There is a broad consensus amongst climate scientists that that the earth is warming, this is caused by human activities and it is dangerous. For practical purposes, there is no doubt that there is a problem and it is of our own making: the question now is what do we do about it?

tomw: There is a broad consensus amongst climate scientists that that the earth is warming, this is caused by human activities and it is dangerous. For practical purposes, there is no doubt that there is a problem and it is of our own making: the question now is what do we do about it?

If you have empirical scientific evidence that substantiates your assertion that human activities have caused dangerous global warming, then don't keep it secret. Table it.

Dear Raycom,

The Greenhouse effect keeps the temperature on Earth 33 C above what it would otherwise be.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

CO2 levels have risen dramatically through the burning of fossil fuels.

Temperature levels have risen as a result.

This sir is physics. What part of the physics do you either not agree with or dismiss?

It might not sit well with your politics but it really is as simple as that.

Steel,

You are quite incorrect. CO2 does not drive Temperature, science clearly shows the inverse I.e. Temperature drives CO2, this is fact, but the mantra has been to show the reverse.

Interestingly 80 million square miles (twice the land mass area of Australia) has benefited from the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years, with new vegetation cover globally, another fact inconveniently missing from the conversation. Just another inconvenient truth eh!

Get your science correct and you will discover the reality of the folly of AGW.

Rusty Reflux has stuck his malfunctioning head back into the debate where he is regularly trounced for his baseless support of the climate fraud.
Back again, Rusty, with no support by way of science, just your dishonesty.
Refer us to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, Reflux. You could not do so before, which is why you went away, having demonstrated that your sole basis for your support of the climate lie is your dishonesty.
How you gained membership of the Flat earthers is puzzling. I thought they had more self respect than to associate with people who have so blatantly proved their dishonesty, as you have done.
You are dead wrong in the "science" you put forward, demonstrating your ignorance of any climate science.

Dear Geoff of Perth,

You wrote;

“You are quite incorrect. CO2 does not drive Temperature, science clearly shows the inverse I.e. Temperature drives CO2, this is fact, but the mantra has been to show the reverse.”

What are you talking about?

Here is a link to a small, simple experiment being replicated by school kids through the NOAA education initiatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Look this is pretty simple, the physics says if you increase the amount of CO2 in an atmosphere there will be a corresponding rise in temperature if an IR source is provided.

You either agree with the physics or you are a flat earther. Your call.

Dear Leo Lane,

How have you been travelling my little friend? I think last time we spoke you had been deeply afflicted by a form of Tourettes which had you fixated on the word 'fraud-backer'. Has that now been dropped for 'dishonest'?

Ahh another thing has come back to me, I'm sure you were at some stage touting Bob Carter as a climate scientist. That was a great laugh. Well good to see you are still here to provide some giggles. Take care.

Physicists lack data on ocean algae plant matter areal coverage and density and links to weather and climate.

Climate science is therefore very incomplete.

Yes, Reflux, Bob Carter is no longer with us, but it is wort remembering his comment on the failed CO2 hypothesis of the mendacious IPCC, which you have mistaken for current science.
“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."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
So, Rusty, you are referring to a failed hypothesis. The laboratory science to which you refer does not work in the real world, where there are far more facors affecting climate, than just CO2.
You have no science to support your fraudulent assertion of human caused global warming. Even if you were right about CO2, the human contribution is 3% against Nature’s 97%, so the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable. I am making you less ignorant, so you will have to rely more on your dishonesty, if you continue to support the climate fraud. If you are not beyond help, I hope this education helps you, but I expect that the flat eathers will kick you out for your unscientific attitude.

Dear Leo Lane,

Saddened to hear of Bob's passing. Contrarians do make the world a more interesting place.

I do note that not one obituary I read referred to him as a climate scientist, not even Jo Nova nor the Heartland Foundation. Yet you repeatedly tried to pass him off as such.

Why did you engage in such dishonesty?

Raycom, sorry I am not a climate scientist and so not equipped to debate the science with you. On this, as with many issues, I take advice from credible experts. Their consensus is that that the earth is warming, this is caused by human activities and it is dangerous.

Tom W.

Tomw, they say there is one born every minute, & posts like yours prove it. Bet you think the Labor party are only interested in your welfare too.

Tell me tomw, which minute were you born, the one before, or the one after the equally gullible SteeleRedux?

Presently India is being hit by high temperatures, food and water resources are critically lacking.
Millions of people are at risk.

Millions of people are at high risk also in African countries through lack of water resources and crop failure.

We need to be concentrating on how to adapt and mitigate against climate change.

But, a little exercise completed earlier today was to find 20 climate science papers published in peer reviewed journals in 2016. The majority of the papers having been published in April 2016.
Those who believe there is no consensus should be able to produce references to papers by skeptical scientists in peer reviewed journals published in 2016.

Lead authors of the various papers are:
Shapna Sharma, Zaichen Zhu, Albert Milbank, James Hansen, Zeebe, A J Turner, Eric Spurling, Matthew Long, Edward Hanna, Ryan J Wooosley, Manabu Nakamoto,Igor Semiletov, Alexander Boehm, Richard Davey, Catriona Menzies, Renato Castelao, Elani Anagnostou, John Landolfi, Delphine Deryng, and Andrew Friedland.

Climate change causing lack of water.
Hmmm, I only read just today that climate change is causing increased rainfall !

Oh interesting isn't it. No consensus there.

Anyway it doesn't matter whether it is warming or not.

Robert Carter was recognized world wide as an authority on climate, Reflux. What is your definition of a climate scientist, and how does Carter fall outside the definition?
This should be amusing, because you have given Skeptical Science as a reference, a site run by a drop-out cartoonist with no qualification in science.
“. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change(2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).
Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy was based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.
Dr. Carter acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and New Zealand parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm, Sweden. He was also a primary science witness in the Hayes Windfarm Environment Court case in New Zealand, and in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.”
https://www.heartland.org/robert-m-carter

Bazz.
It does matter.
How else will they get to increase electricity and living cost.

Dear Leo Lane,

You spectacularly failed to weasel out of this last time why on earth do you think this would be any different.

The Heartland Institute satys “Dr. Carter was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience.”

Note they do not claim he was a climate scientist. The closest this scurrilous lot felt they could get away with was “was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change”.

John Cook from Skeptical Science isn't a climate scientist either but unlike your effort with Bob no one has claimed he was. He does however have a degree in science with a first class honours in physics which is vital in understanding climate dynamics and something poor Bob sorely lacked.

You were dishonest back then and to be repeating the claim is only adding to that dishonesty. You should quit now.

So, Reflux, no definition of a climate scientist, and you have no idea of what constitutes a climate scientist. Read about Robert Carter, and you will know what a climate scientist does, and your addled brain might attempt a definition.
When the fraud promoters, like yourself, had no science to counter Carter’s demonstration of the invalidity of their pseudo-scientific lies, they made up a name for him; “contrarian”. It means that he has shown what nonsense their so-called science is.
Where is the science to show any measurable human effect on climate, for which you have been continually asked.
Reflux can no more produce that, than he can produce a definition of a climate scientist, but he cannot stem his addle-brained output, to continue making a fool of himself. Where is your science, and where is your rational basis for your baseless assertion about Robert Carter? You do not have any justification for your addle-brained fraud backing.
Robert Carter was the author of more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals. He contributed regular letters, opinion pieces and interviews to newspapers, national
magazines and other media, and regularly engaged in public speaking on matters
related to his research knowledge.

He had 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigropher,
marine geologist and environmental scientist, and held degrees from the
University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of
Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999..

He gave evidence before a US Senate committee on global warming,
He continually researched amongst other things, climate change, and sea-levels change.
That was some of his work as a climate scientist, and Reflux boneheadedly asserts that he was not a climate scientist.Reflux, who obtains his climate science from a cartoonist, who Reflux says is not a climate scientist. Reflux does not explain how he comes to be running a site, purporting to supply climate science utilized by Reflux himself.

Dear Leo Lane,

Steady on the Ritalin there young fella.

No need to reguritate Bob's CV. We got it the first time.

Seems I will have to explain this to you again.

Look both archeologists and doctors study humans. However if you ill you don't go to the former to tell you what is wrong.

A proper climate scientist is like the doctor, they have an understanding of how the atmosphere behaves and how it responds to changing variables. A decent grounding in Physics, particularly atmospheric physics is a vital part of that understanding.
Bob's involvement with climate studies was looking at it from a palaeontologist viewpoint. He did not have the grouding to be regarded as a climate scientist just as an archeologist is not regarded as a medical doctor.

My definition of a climate scientist is one who is well trained in physics and modelling, has engaged in “the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time”, and has published a paper or article in an authoratative climate journal.

That was not Bob Carter.

None of this;

“He had 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigropher, marine geologist and environmental scientist, and held degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.”

made him a climate scientist nor does an interest in climate change. That you refuse to accept it is a reflection of the affliction which continues to bedevil you, being blind to the facts when they are staring you in the face.

JF Aus, future electricity prices will have nothing to do with climate change.
Those prices will be set by the decline of the coal industry which is
already underway. Peabody Corp in the US and Australia is already
bankrupt. Many more coal companies will follow as the cost of coal
extraction keeps rising.
As more coal fired stations are closed with or without having an
alternative the price will really rise.
The greens have a policy of closing ALL the power stations in
the Yallorn Valley as well as those in the Hunter Valley.

However they intend to replace their output with solar & wind.
The catch 22 is that solar & wind cannot do the job.
To cater for say five overcast windless days you have to install
solar & wind systems six times the size needed for one day.
No one can afford that unless you have astronomical electricity prices.

Then what happens if there are six overcast windless days ?
Don't say it won't happen, I have counted five a number of times.

Bazz,

You say climate change has nothing to do with future electricity prices, best you check the ftoday's news, especially the last paragraphs here;
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-crippling-cost-of-a-carbon-tax/news-story/149fbc9ea8b5b869c24d916e567fadde

When there are cloudy windless days, just buy more batteries so you have bigger cost when they wear out in 4 or 5 years. LOL
Remember also about the toxic materials used in manufacturing batteries. LOL

JF Aus
Couldn't read that article, it is behind a paywall.
Well sunny days have to be stored somehow, it would be a massive
battery to keep NSW going for five days.
They could of course be nickle iron cells and they last almost forever.
Still any sort of battery would push the cost of electricity to impossible levels.
How about a week of overcast & windless ?

No, somehow a base load system will be needed.
It could be nuclear of course but the greenies will abuse anyone who would consider it.
Geothermal is one possibility.

Forget global warming we have bigger problems than that.

Bazz,
That article comes up for me via Google: the crippling cost of a carbon tax.

Where I am up near the equator, there can be 2 or 3 weeks of very cloudy days without sun or wind.
Solar systems only get a dribble and need a generator to recharge.

What to forget?
The ocean are in real trouble. Can oceans be forgotten?

All the waffle about AGW and CO2 and physics and climate science modelling is extraordinary from my point of view.
What do physicists know about biology and algae?
How long has climate been a science?
However I respect true science I do think humans are changing weather and climate.

Even the following news of today is wrong on some points.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/emerging-threat-from-climate-change-ocean-oxygen-levels-are-starting-to-drop-20160427-gogqd3.html

It's not possible to forget impact of unprecedented sewage and land use proliferated algae that consumes oxygen at night and during very cloudy days.

I think AGW science is very incomplete.

Reflux does not know the difference between fact and opinion. He deludes himself into thinking that his flawed definition is fact, when it is merely his questionable opinion, and his inappropriate analogy underlines the fact that he does not have a clue.
A climate scientist is trained in the observation and study of climate, as Bob Carter was, including past climate, studied through geology.
Bob Carter was a world recognised climate scientist, so it is of little import that the addle-brained Reflux does not recognise him, a fraud-backer who cannot even define “climate scientist”, does not matter.

Oh dear Leo,

It really is kinda sweet.

You will defend this man as a climate scientist even when he clearly was no such thing and when Jo Nova and the Heartland Institute refrained from giving such an endorsement.

Mate, if that's your firm belief then okay. I am prepared to accept that in your heart of hearts you truly believe that Bob Carter was a climate scientist, so therefore I withdraw the charge of dishonesty as your delusion really predicates more a prognosis of mental instability.

I should have picked up on it earlier. Your see-sawing between addressing me directly then next as the third person was a red flag. Your repetitions and insistence on defending proven falsehoods was also indicative of issues.

Here is the thing though my friend, I have few issues with people having contrary views on climate change. There are a couple in my group of friends who hold them. What gets my goat is when little twats on here throw out constant diatribes and accusations of 'fraud' and 'dishonesty'. It is my failing that I respond in kind.

Given your afflictions I will endevour to be more circumspect with you in the future but I'm unable to give an ironclad guarantee as it sadly appears to be 'in my nature'.

Reflux says” Your see-sawing between addressing me directly then next as the third person was a red flag. Your repetitions and insistence on defending proven falsehoods was also indicative of issues.”
Ha bloody Ha Reflux, everyone has their own style. I certainly do not like yours, and you, apparently do not like mine.
I understand your position, Reflux. You have no science to back your assertions, so you have to stigmatise Carter’s unassailable science as “proven falsehoods”. Where were the “falsehoods” proven, Reflux? On the unqualified cartoonist’s fraud promoting website, no doubt., the deceptively, and dishonestly named Skeptical Science, Rusty’s resource of pseudo-science.

If the ocean is set to rise as the global warming says,
Then will the Barrier Reef be further under water and thus more
Shielded from the sun.

I thought the Barrier Reef might use the bleached parts as a sun shield and just go
Right on thriving underneath.

It's bloody hot up here in the tropics has been all my life
Bleaching must be nothing new to the reef

CHERFUL, your post reminded me of this comment in a newspaper article:
“New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/great-barrier-reef-signs-of-recovery-despite-major-coral-bleaching/news-story/e826d014a1b593efaf879cbb030804d5

The “destruction of the Reef” lie is a favourite of the climate fraud promoters, who infest the Forum.

Leo Lane

Thanks for the link.

Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handlind a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..

The flea says above:”But, a little exercise completed earlier today was to find 20 climate science papers published in peer reviewed journals in 2016. The majority of the papers having been published in April 2016.
Those who believe there is no consensus should be able to produce references to papers by skeptical scientists in peer reviewed journals published in 2016.”
So 20 papers by the fraud promoters, and 133 by the truth promoters
“already this year alone (2016) some 133 consensus-skeptical papers have been published.”

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/28/already-133-consensus-skeptical-papers-in-2016-over-660-past-two-years/#ixzz47nD9Nsd8
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18187&page=0
There is a well received resource here:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
The flea in his usual ignorant manner, has put up a post irrelevant to the topic, because he refuses to respond to the relevant question as to the science to show any measurable human effect on climate to justify the flea’s assertion of human caused global warming. He insolently and uncivilly ignores the question. He does not even acknowledge that he has been asked, hejust pigheadedly posts irrelevant rubbish, lately without even a comment as to why he thinks he is posting the links in this irrational manner..

Leo
The caveat I gave was papers be published in peer reviewed journals.
A fail on that account.
Shown by: "Received date: Jan 25, 2016; Accepted date: Feb 15, 2016; Published date: Feb 17, 2016"

Many scientists complain about the length of time it takes to have a scientific paper published; it can take up to a year after firs being presented due to the review process.

When Powell did his research in 2013 and 2014 he found that around 12,000 papers are published each year in peer reviewed journals.

A quote from reference you provided:

"Though most of the papers the Kenneth Richard lists support that climate change is happening (it always has) and that human activity appears to be one factor, the alarmist scenarios often trumpeted by the media and IPCC scientists are in fact turning out to be more hype and less reality."

Satellite temperature for April 2016:

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

Your source states that climate change is happening; whether created partially by man or natural changes.

What are we going to do about it?

For Example:

http://assets.climatecentral.org/pdfs/AgeofAlaskanWildfires.pdf

Now for the comedy session, your abuse.

ant,

I am about to go and buy a flea collar to wear while reading OLO. Perhaps a can of Mortein would be better. TIC

Can you possibly understand warmth coming off the surface of the sea can be already warm as it passes over land where the warmth can increase due to above water albeit land temperature.

It is increase in warmth that can lead to increase in fires and increase in severity.

It's warmth associated with algae that is linked to surface water temperature and warmth (or cold) coming off the water.

How can CO2 warm surface water or land in one area and not the whole globe at the same time?

JF Aus
Did you read:

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

The evidence provided by Professors Lindzen and Spencer was tested in a Court setting in relation to climate science:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost?CMP=share_btn_fb

How many climate scientists are there in total in the world?
Is it 97 percent of all climate scientists in the world or is it 97 percent of just 500 or so?

How long has climate science been a science?