A little bit of housecleaning:

1. ant,
"mhaze, suggested he would confer with a mate from WUWT."
No I didn't say any such thing.

What I did say was that I followed the advice of a commenter at WUWT to read the actual Exxon papers to see why the 'case' against Exxon was rubbish and destined to fail. I read those papers and urged you to do likewise so as to not make a fool of yourself by buying the gumph being pushed by the activists. As usual you refused to read anything that might upset your beliefs and so have spent 10 months writing about something that was clearly, from the outset, utter propaganda.

Read this (or not) to see how the case has fallen apart. The article makes many of the points I tried to educate you on almost a yar ago now: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-exxon-case-unraveled-1472598472

2. Max,
"You copied and pasted your denialist blog straight into the forum here." You've made this claim several times without the slightest attempt at evidence. The quotes were from AR5. They were probably mentioned in myriad blogs since they were rather important in that they represented a significant climb down by the IPCC from their earlier scaremongering in previous reports.

"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?"

Who said you "denied the quote"?

The fact is that I used Ar5 to show that there are no trends, good or bad, in global climate extremes. I never denied that the IPCC models suggest trends in region extremes. But you sought to deny the evidence on the global data by concentrating on the regional data. I accepted all the data for what its worth while you accepted that data that supported your beliefs.

My point about the SPM was that, while the Assessment Reports (flawed though they may be) are written by the scientists, the SPM are written by governments. Simple as that.

@mhaze "the SPM are written by governments."

False. The SPMs are all authored by the Scientists of the various Review committees. They are volunteers too btw, they receive no remuneration for their work or time. In fact, what usually happens is that one gets roped into being the volunteer for the job from hell to write the draft SPM, then the rest contribute their ideas/edits, until they all agree.

Then before these SPMs are finally accepted by the IPCC review process, various Govt reps sit in the final review that can go on for days and all the way to sunrise arguing about anything and everything (incl a single word out of thousands), between various Govt Reps and the scientists who wrote the SPM.

Eventually after much stress, sophistry and verbal abuse/insults compromises are made so the scientists can get back to their real jobs.

That's what gets published by the IPCC and then accepted by the UNFCCC which goes through the whole process again in their own way.

So what mhaze is purporting here is in fact false. Governments do NOT write the SPMs. Mhaze is spreading untrue disinformation here and everywhere else he publishes his incorrect faulty beliefs and opinions.

The proof for my corrections can be found via http://www.ipcc.ch

I will not waste my precious time giving a direct url link in the lame hope that in their impassioned desire to prove me wrong that mhaze and others might just stumble across something else they have got seriously wrong too.

Simple as that!

“Fiddling while Rome burns” is basically now a modern day metaphor. Meaning: “To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.”

@JF Aus re "And here I am with a lifetime of experience in underwater ocean exploration."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#329057 et cetera

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#329081 et cetera

Let me Google that for You
http://scholar.lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+science%2C+oceans%2C+and+global+warming

-

JF Aus,
there's a *tiny* bit of truth in your argument. But that's the problem. It's *tiny*. In the smallest of the changed albedo categories.

The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER!

0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

There are only TINY changes to TINY areas of ocean off our coasts. Fractions of less than 1% of the earth's surface. There is no known physics that can demonstrate algae to add 4 Hiroshima bombs per second to the energy balance of our planet! Even with our oceanic dead zones and areas where the nutrient load is WAY too high, I doubt how much we've increased algae on the planet, and whether that would even CORRESPOND to the earth's MASSIVE increase in temperatures. Let alone the fact that you've got a complete physics BLANK when it comes to proving the CAUSATIVE process for such a huge energy intake.

You simply don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

CO2, on the other hand, is also a tiny percent of the atmosphere. But unlike your mysterious, ZERO evidence assertions for algae, CO2 has a Radiative Forcing that is measurable in any decent physics lab on the planet. A Fourier Device measures energy shadows. It's like a high tech version of shadow puppets, but instead of guessing if it's a rabbit or a dog, the shadow measures energy passing through various gases. The 'shadow' reveals what was trapped: and with CO2, it's long wave radiation, otherwise known as heat.

CO2 traps heat! The amount is measured in the Radiative Forcing Equation, and equates to an EXTRA 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Yes, the earth receives a lot MORE energy per second. But that energy balance was equal, with the majority heading out to space. Guess what CO2 does? ;-)

How do you tell mhaze is trolling?
His keyboard is moving.

It’s almost become too petty to bother responding to. But I’ll have a go.
>>>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 when I said that AR5_WG1 said there was low confidence that there are any global trends in climate extreme events. You've spent all that time trying to deflect, but we did get there.<<<
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459#329039
This is mhaze implying I didn’t concede it from the start. Simple, really, isn’t it? Blowing his own trumpet for all to see, but hey? Let’s not let the truth get in the way. I never denied or deflect from the start. I explained it.

>>>I accepted all the data for what its worth while you accepted that data that supported your beliefs.<<<
What a con! It’s called cherry-picking, not “accepted that data that supported your beliefs”. That’s an outright lie.
The working group clearly concludes that EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ARE *LIKELY* TO INCREASE.

But mhaze says the global model is ‘science’ while the SPM is ‘politics’. Duh! One is merely the summary of the other, and the other is long and complex and mhaze obviously hasn’t bothered with Chapter 10 explaining why they dumped the global model in favour of the regional model. It’s like mhaze is denying cars exist because he can still see a horse. It’s that bad.
>>> 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.<<<

Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it sings the praises of WUWT.

mhaze
When the IPCC does not suit what you want, you post a misrepresentation.
You admit to some kind of association with the pseudo science source of WUWT.
Then you provide a Wall Street Journal referral; then , expect to be taken seriously.
The Wall Street Journal has lost credibility since being taken over by Murdoch.

oh for God's sake Max. The report made two broad points:
1. That the evidence for their previous confidence that there were/would be adverse trends on a global scale wasn't there. They'd made claims based on models in previous AR and the evidence meant they had to retreat from their previous confidence in that model data.
2. The model data for region adverse trends gave them more confidence that such regional trends were real.

I used the first point to make my point. I never rejected the second point because it wasn't pertinent to my point.

You sought to disprove my point by asserting that only the second point was valid and/or that it superceded their global research.

I get that you will never accept your earlier error (just as you've never accepted any of your other errors) so I won't torment you any longer on this.