Bigmouth O’Reilly says :”The scientific results would still show global warming being man-made. :”
That is nonsense, bigmouth.
You have been asked repeatedly to give a reference to science which shows any measurable man-made effect on climate, and you failed to do so.
You now assert the lie which I have just quoted.
Of course I understand that anything you say to support your position as a fraud-backer will be dishonest and untruthful, like your statement which I have just quoted, so I will do my best to point out each further instance of your lying as it arises.

Hi JF how's it going? In answer to your questions, in order:

No. I answered the question you asked, now you go do the work
yourself if you're interested. I'm not a computer, or anyone's slave.

Next, no I won't. Next, no. Next, ample.

I usually don't answer 'why' questions, but I'll make an exception. ie Because I am not a control freak, and Max can read what I say of he wishes. Same as you can.

It's not a scare tactic it basically true and backed by science. Facts can be scary for some people aka the truth hurts but band-aids are cheap.

Lastly, a lot. If you want the specifics you can go look it up yourself.

Q. to ant: "What evidence do AGW proponents have to prove CO2 emissions are the only cause of warming?"

A. None. Your question is totally disconnected from reality or any sense of realism and truth. I think you're a Wizard https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wizard_troll_doll-low_res.jpg

mhaze, very funny retort to Max. You've won a bronzed banana for your wit and extraneous exaggeration. Collect it at the box office on your way out. :-)

Meanwhile the Oceans - 70% of the planets surface vs Marohasy's conspiratorial concerns about the BOM.

IUCN:

This is no longer a single story of ocean warming challenges to coral reefs, but a rapidly growing list of alarming changes across species at ecosystem scales, and across geographies spanning the entire world.

It is pervasive change, driven by ocean warming and other stressors already operating in ways we are only beginning to understand.

More than 93% of the enhanced heating since the 1970s resulting from human activities has been absorbed by the ocean, and data show a sustained and accelerating upward trend in ocean warming.

The scale of ocean warming depicted in the report is truly staggering: if the same amount of heat that has gone into the top 2 km of the ocean between 1955 and 2010 had instead gone into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere, the Earth would have seen a warming of 36°C.

http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/news/20160905/article/global-warning-ocean-warming
-

Hi mhaze,
//phew Max, we finally got there. Its only taken two weeks, umpteen posts and two threads for you to finally concede that I was right//

You copied and pasted your denialist blog straight into the forum here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

All I did, in the very next post, was just ask for a source. Show me where I denied the quote or you're a liar?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327519

You then smugly tried to create a divide between the Working Group's conclusions on Extreme Weather, and the Summary for Policy Makers. (SPM). //We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM.  Science v. politics..//
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327522

I then immediately clarified that the SPM was PART of the Working Group report and that the SPM only summarised what the Working Group CONCLUDES about Extreme Weather. Guess what? It's going to get MORE EXTREME! The Working Group discussed the deficiencies of the global model you CHERRYPICK from and then the advantages and accuracy of the regional model.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327805

As you said, //Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.// If you don't like it, just cherrypick it.

You've been caught out disingenuously & dogmatically dictating denialist dogma. But not only that, now you're congratulating yourself for convincing me to believe the Working Group when that's simply back to front! You're the one who won't accept the Working Group's findings: MORE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ARE **LIKELY**!

You're not just a copy and paste shill, but now you're outright lying. You're a troll, on the same level of 'credibility' as Leo Lane's mad conspiracy theories and JF Aus's algae.

It’s a warning boys and girls.

Don’t rub your brain against tinfoil hat websites, because the disease is catching.

Max

mhaze, has some kind of association with WUWT.
Some time ago when discussing ExxonMobil and the mutually exclusive stance of seemingly to support its scientists of the 1970s, and management supporting denier groups with funding; mhaze, suggested he would confer with a mate from WUWT.

At the time, ExxonMobil was being investigated only by the Attorney General of New York State; several other Attorney Generals from other States have since become involved. It is alleged the accepting of science from they're own Professional scientific staff, and funding deniers provided false information to financial markets. It is seen to be criminal activity to provide false information to financial markets.

mhaze, had been trying to create doubt in relation to the alleged criminal activity, even though the situation has not been finalised as yet.

The usual denier style create doubt on all matters; regardless of facts and data.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 10:18:12 PM

Thomas, since you ask how's it going, it's going very well.
It is now clearly obvious you are ducking and weaving to avoid explaining reason for your answers.

It's going well because it is clear you have read my genuine questions and then you intentionally refuse to explain reason for your yes and no quips.
I am aware the real answers would show you are wrong.

Other people on this thread can also see your method of operation, Thomas.

I think it extraordinary you are failing to acknowledge algae contains rhodopsin that has thermal properties, and that Stanford scientists have tapped straight into currents of electrons generated at the cellular level in algae, the latter where you are virtually denying there is any heat generated there at all. Not even a tiny fraction of a degree, multiplied by algae biomass on this planet.

It's also going well especially because you refuse to debate evidence the BIQ building in Germany is using photosynthesis to multiply algae organisms that give off heat, to help warm the building.

And I ask again, where is evidence to prove your claim that 30,000 scientists agree CO2 emissions are causing AGW? 30K you kept repeating.
Basically true backed by science you say. What level of science is that?
I now wonder about your qualifications and motives, Thomas.

It really is extraordinary. You refuse to discuss properties and impact of algae plant matter in oceans that drive weather and regulate temperature.

(copy pasted) oceanservice.noaa.gov › Ocean Facts
The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet's surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all .. (end copy)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

And here I am with a lifetime of experience in underwater ocean exploration.

I would like to thank Jennifer Marohasy and OLO for the article prompting this thread that has led to revealing Professor Brian Cox has knowledge of electrochemical reaction and thermal properties of rhodopsin that is linked to ocean algae, the latter inextricably linked to change in weather and climate.

JF AUS: if anyone is dodging the questions, it's you.

Once again: how to you explain that many international tests have found the EXACT OPPOSITE to what you are claiming?

Here's what the ACTUAL science says:
“Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have COMPLETED ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.”
http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

Not enough? Mt Pinatubo spewed “40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.”
goo.gl/RLY6Ij

Not enough? Here's the peer-reviewed result from the ocean fertilisation experts:

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science
That’s sad. I was starting to get excited that algae might be a silver bullet, but at least it's something in our arsenal to more gradually reduce CO2. (Spreading olivine around to soak up CO2 might even be cheaper, but that's another topic).
The bottom line is this.
MORE ALGAE = LESS CO2 = LOWER TEMPERATURES.
At least according to real science.
Have a nice day.