Don you're a young Earth creationist, and if you don't understand what I mean by that, well go a read some of their material.
They are unutterably convinced that they are correct and the majority of scientist are wrong.

Your position is pretty much the same, as in there is simply nothing that could now move you away from your entrenched position.

There is no doubt that denier groups are funded by fossil fuel companies, there is quite a literature on it.
ExxonMobil has paid $30,925,235 to denier groups from 1998 to 2014. As there is/was a mutually exclusive strategy of making such payments and at the same time support the science created by they're scientists of the 1970s, ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of jurisdictions for alleged criminal behaviour in financial markets.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

Your a denier old son and as such stop BS to us all and admit it

Thanks Don, your essays are always a good read.
I am one of those "deniers" who believe that climate change is real and humankind must have had something to do with it, however, I will not be hoodwinked by alarmists into believing that the sky is falling and the only way to fix it is to pour billions of dollars (some of which are my dollars) into an endless gravy train full of snake oil sales persons and rent seekers.

Cheers

Ross

Cobber and others who start with ad hominem. Did you go and read the paper I was reviewing? If you didn't, do yourself a favour and go and read it. It won't take long. Then you can enter a useful discussion (always assuming that you want to do so).

All well and good. And an example of pervasive obfuscation?
Given the sun has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies. (NASA) And we've just passed through the hottest years on record, and seem well on the way to another?

It then follows that something (variables taken into plus or minus account) other than solar thermal action is warming the planet!?
Aliens with ray guns? Galactic conspiracy?
Alan B.

That's unfair Don. If you said from the get-go that the lead author was Lewandowsky we'd have known that you were writing about something that's utter rubbish. This the man who found 10 (out of 1147) people who doubted the moon landing, turned that into 'proof' that most 'deniers' doubt the moon landing (even though most of the 10 weren't deniers) and then parlayed that into a career.

Lewandowsky is proof that the peer-review system, at least as regards climate science, is spectacularly flawed, and his being feted by the consensus community shows the depths to which that community will descend to 'win'.

The entire issue is now so politicised that sensible discussion is no longer an option. We all know that the 97% consensus is a fiction, or is at least a fiction in regards to the way its used. That is, quite probably 97% of climate scientists think that change is occurring and is partially caused by man, but there is no evidence that 97% agree that its dangerous as Obama claimed.
But now its a catch-all. Disagree with anything from the consensus and you're accused of going against the 97%.

When I'm told I am a denier, I often ask what they suppose I deny. Silence is the usual response.

But this creates problems going ahead. The climate community and their political allies misunderstand the skeptic case and thus sensible discussion and decision-making becomes impossible. Assert that the case hasn't been made that we need to do anything about purported sea level rises just yet, and you're informed that its been proven that CO2 traps heat, the 97% is invoked and therefore you're wrong. There's nowhere to go after that.

Ultimately the belief in CC is neither here nor there if it can't be translated into action. And since action means economic sacrifice, and people, while mouthing the platitudes aren't prepared to sacrifice to Gaia, the whole issue will become an historic curiosity.

Don if you don't mind I want to open this right up.

1. In the Olden Times when I went to uni in the 1960s... I don't know that academics ever had to publish all this stuff. They just talked and gave lectures, marked exams and generally provoked us to think. This publishing frenzy is a monster out of control.

2. Dare I mention the F-word? I used to have many arguments with one feminist and it was a while before I woke up to her tricks. She was famous for energetically promoting herself. Any time she spoke to the press, she got them to call her "a leading feminist". There seem to be thousands of these! She was published by various outfits, nearly always cosy nests of other feminists who published other feminists' work. Maybe that's a familiar pattern? You get together with a few scaly mates and feather your own nest, then pass it off as academic writing and get promoted. Of course, if you meet the conventional wisdom you get research money and hey presto! you're respectable and respected. By some, anyway.

I don't know much about climate change but it was amusing to note that the guy on Q and A who was most vociferously opposed to it had been the owner of a coal mine. Self-interest always trumps the common-wealth.

3. There are well-known non-journals wherein, if you just pay the editor a few hundred, your piece will appear. Something came up about this recently. One notorious senior academic was touting one such journal to us but it soon became known what type of garbage it was.

Anyway, a good piece but needs to be spread around an academic audience, I think.

Dear Don,

You claim:

"but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming".

While they talk of a slowing of warming they do not mention the word 'hiatus' once. A slowing is not a pausing, it is still continuing to warm.

Why claim this when it patently is not true?

"A slowing is not a pausing, it is still continuing to warm."

A paper from the Met entitled "The recent pause in
global warming (1)".

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

"This paper is the first in a series of three reports from the Met Office Hadley Centre that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions. What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period; what are the potential drivers of the current pause; and how does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate? "

There's also a paper "The recent pause in global warming (2)"..
" Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming"

And a third paper..."The recent pause in global surface temperature rise"

The Claytons pause. The pause you're having when you're not having a pause.

Here we go again, wasting time and effort on an argument that does
not matter whether it is true or not.

Oh, it's a 'review' (i.e. blog commentary) of a commentary in a 'social' science journal.

Eunuchs at the orgy indeed.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

The Arctic is in a mess, much multi year ice has been lost; the latest forecast suggests much more sea ice can be lost prior to the period of re-freezing begins. For area and extent sea ice is at its second lowest level ever recorded.

http://grist.org/briefly/this-is-what-near-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-looks-like/

The importance of snow and ice is to moderate temperatures down.

Whether the climate is showing natural variation; or, man has an impact, planning and action is necessary.

Ant refuses to climb the ladder to the Ivory towers....good onya ant, feet on the ground!

I don't know why we're not doing something about the Arctic. After all, its going to be ice free by 2013.

Oh wait.....

This Don Aitkin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Aitkin

You're a disgrace to your profession Don. Perhaps Alzheimer's is affecting your critical thinking skills these days because you are well out of your intellectual depth here.

My well-informed intelligent opinion is you're a Sophist. In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments. That's what you're doing Don.

An intentional lack of attention to detail appears to be your current excuse for the pervasive incompetence expressed in this vapid article. Pervasive, meaning ‘permeated’, ‘diffused through’, etc, and vapid as in: insipid, uninspired, feeble, flat, dead, dull, boring, tedious, lifeless and untrue.

Your only field of expertise left appears to be in the manipulative use of logical fallacies including ad hominem, cherry-picking, poisoning the well, false appeals to 'authority' coupled with your total abandonment of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

This is why I question your state of mind in old age given that at one time you seemed to have a positive reputation in academia. There are obvious reasons why that reputation is in tatters now. It's called denying the obvious and denying the scientific rigor replete in the accumulated climate science evidence across decades by over 30,000 scientists in that field.

You know better than this combined human knowledge wisdom do you? Is your other name Jesus Christ perhaps? Or Allah? Or the Wizard of Oz hiding behind the green curtain?

Being full of yourself doesn't rate in 'science' Don.

DA falsely claims: "... but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming"

Don, that's a provable lie. Why are you lying about this?

DA: "First, they make stuff up."

So it's a FAIL Don. With this degree of incompetence in your own 'thinking' your article is worthless. You should have had it peer-reviewed and avoided all the public embarrassment.

Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again Don? The answer is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_py6WbMV1k
-

DA: ".to find as an example of entrenched denial in opposition to pervasive consensus, but there’s no evidence for it here."

Then you must have been living under a rock Don for decades. In fact you promote that denial which raises the question of self-delusions.

DA: "But the ‘cooling’ view does have some scientific support (see, for example, here)."

And then you Ref a SOTT article? Are you serious? This is your version of intelligent 'scientific rigor' is it? Laughable!

It doesn't even link to the actual 'paper' you think so highly of besides the included illogical rubbish on that page. I think you need help Don.

Oh dear surprise it's ref'd on the 'pseudo-journalist' Jo Nova's DENIER website http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/is-a-mini-ice-age-coming-in-2030-and-does-the-sun-have-two-dynamos/

NOVA SAYS: "(With the caveat that this new study is still a MODEL, correlation is not causation, etc.)"

Oh dear Don, wanting to have your cake and eat it to, like all Sophists do. Did you even read the Paper? I have. Tell the TRUTH Don, if you can.

DA: a quote and "So how do we tell when what we are getting is scientific fact or denial?"

Are you really this stupid or just 'acting'? So you cannot tell the difference between science & peer-review versus public debates in a democracy about Policy and the Law? Laughable!

Scientists produce the Science, it is self-referring rigorous. Scientific 'debates' occur via research papers in Journals and Meetings among scientists to establish what is true and what is not, and what might be possible. E=MC2 is a Consensus among scientists.

No 'democracy' required. It's the same in China, Zimbabwe & Australia or it isn't Science, that's where it stops!

In a democracy people/govts debate about things including the 'advice' and 'knowledge' provided by Science. The discussion is about what to do about that Knowledge?

It is NOT a 'scientific debate' it is a policy debate. Non-Scientists have NO RIGHTS within Science to argue or deny anything - NONE.

That's for the "scientists" not incompetent fools!

'The Devil' explains Skepticism vs Denial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pyeRHCpRM

Do FLICC off!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSPLiCvh7xA
-

Well that all proves one thing;
The Warmists really do descend into abuse when somebody probes myths.

Mhaze
You made the completely inane comment:

"I don't know why we're not doing something about the Arctic. After all, its going to be ice free by 2013.

Oh wait....."

The sea ice currently is broken up very close to the North Pole, you would have noticed if you had gone to the reference. The trend lines are going down for area, and extent of sea ice. Much multi year ice has been lost.

@Bazz I am not going to lower myself to your level of inane beliefs. The only Myths going on here are by Don Aitkin, anyone who is gullible enough to swallow them, and the myths resident inside your own head space.

There's good reason why there was a Separation between Church (ie Mythical Beliefs) and the State. It was the result of Science and the Enlightenment. Maybe you've never heard of it?

However if you wish to "believe" in Myths and the typical denial of science in the climate field then that's your right. Just do not expect me nor anyone else to believe the same garbage as you do, and don't expect anyone to not fight like hell to keep such lunacies out of Politics and Policy discussions/responses.

That being said, I would of course fight hard to defend your "free speech" constitutional right and your human rights to believe in whatever whacko idea you wish.

But you have no rights beyond that. No else must accept your beliefs.

So if anyone's up for a civil war or some other crazy response then I am up for that anytime. You'll lose. If you weren't stuck inside this IPA echo-chamber you'd already know that. Beliefs are powerful little critters!

Further to @ant's contribution, here's some pretty pictures to set off a bit of cognitive dissonance http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
(while Don, Marohasy & Hazer do sophistry in pixels, reality is another thing!)

Average sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million square kilometers, the fourth lowest August extent in the satellite record.

This is 1.03 million square kilometers below the 1981 to 2010 average for the month and 890,000 square kilometers above the record low for August set in 2012.

As of September 5, sea ice extent remains below average everywhere except for a small area within the Laptev Sea.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Pretty pics
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/09/fig2b.png
and the north pole sept 8th
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/unReal-Pole-20160908.jpg

Lots of pretty pics here too http://greatwhitecon.info/blog/

Meanwhile 2016 is on track to be the 3rd year in a row to set a new Global Mean Temperature Record.

What "haitus"?
-

excuse my sceptiicism of the academics pushing this global warming

Theyve been claiming the Barrier Reef has been dying since the early 1970's.
Hello 45years and the barrier reef is still here.

Islands are being swallowed by the ocean. Well Ive seen that on the news too,
decades ago.
The same type of supposedly, unquestional scientific academics, threw
Ienstien out of university because he challenged their proven scientific theories.

Its no accident that the left uses this global warming to attack capitalist industry.
That is the political ideaology of the hippy, communist (leftist) movement.

In reality, the biggest threat to the earth is the overpopulation of male dominated
countries. who consume and eat up all the resources,drive animals to extinction
all over the world. They are the unhappiest countries on earth and there is a
civil, tribal, war always raging in their midst. The west has been giving them
billions of dollars in aid for 50years and still they havent improved their status
but continue to starve and fight and try to overrun other peoples countries.

When I hear the scientists confront and carry on about these more threatening problems
Ill believe that their global warming science isnt a politically convienent ideaology more than a scientific fact.

Thanks, Don, for another informative article.
The incompetents, who wrote the paper, fall down badly in one important respect.
They do not define “denier”, without which, their paper is meaningless.
The definition would have to indicate what it is that is being “denied”.
Since there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, they cannot produce a definition, so their paper is baseless, and invalid. It is another attempt to assert the climate fraud. It even has a reference to Oreskes, the history professor who has already made a fool of herself by her false assertions in relation to “climate change”.
I notice that bigmouth O’Reilly has marred the thread with his presence. He has already displayed his low intellect and ignorance, so no one takes any notice of him.

@Leo Lane, the intellectual giant strikes again, ROTFLMAO.

Now back to reason, logic, science and evidence AKA how not to "cherry-pick" and not build "strawmen" to knock down, or use sophistry.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
"We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Read it or don't.

History and future of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
"Why is this finding important? Climate science is a highly politicized science. Not necessarily because climate scientists are advocates of a particular political mission—most climate scientists I know are in fact quite apolitical people. But the issue they are dealing with is clearly political in nature."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031003

Read it, or don't.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Read it, or don't.

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
"Those who disagree about climate change disagree over BASIC FACTS (e.g., the effects of CO2 on climate) and have different cultural and POLITICAL VALUES. These results suggest that scientists who are climate change SKEPTICS are OUTLIERS and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is CREDIBLE and MATURE."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025

Read it, or don't.

Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability
"Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming." [...] "and particularly over the so-called ‘hiatus’ period since about 2000."
http://goo.gl/Exnt3T

Read it, or don't.

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown - John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann et al.
"It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is
unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
-

@Thomas O'Reilly, the intellectual giant BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! strikes again.

Your docile uncritical state-worship have been disproved in this forum over and over and over and over and over and over again. You have nothing.

In particular, there are three questions that every warmist including you has FAILED to answer which completely disposes of your case, and which you deal with by running away when confronted by them, and then popping up later re-running the same religious liturty, which is all you're doing now.

Go back and read them.

Either answer them or shut up and don't come back.

Here is what an honest, competent climate scientist said about the “science” of the consensus, bigmouth. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, bigmouth, so you have not posted it anywhere, it does not exist, so it is pointless you lying about it any more, bigmouth.
“Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.
Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C an...... the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
4. The The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

This from our resident dill:

"DA [Aitken] falsely claims: "... but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming"

Don, that's a provable lie. Why are you lying about this? "

Provable lie. A provable lie which he then proceeds, in true Mr O' fashion to conspicuously not prove.
Hilariously he says this after I'd already posted links to several articles from the MET discussing the pause.

But as we know, the actual facts are entirely unimportant to Mr O'

Stand by for more lunacy from our resident child. Don't expect however to see the provable lie proven.

Leo

Your comments in relation to Carter are nothing more than a fallacious deferral to authority commentary.

The amount of greenhouse gas forcing in the atmosphere has been measured since 1979 by NOAA. A huge degree of hubris is required to deny these measures.

But:

Many times I have stated that regardless of whether climate change has been impacted by man or is a natural phenomena; planning needs to occur.

View the photo of the North Pole and ponder on it.

Decades ago National Geographic provided articles about hardy souls moving across the Arctic sea ice to visit the North Pole. Under current circumstances such expeditions are not possible.

http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/unReal-Pole-20160908.jpg

Off East Antarctica around 6,000 square kilometres of sheet ice is sooner or later going to calve off the Larson C ice sheet.

To ignore what is happening with the climate is lunacy.

To suggest that lay people know better than almost 200 years of climate research by thousands of scientists is laughable. It is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Here we are, people who should be friendly are abusing each other over
something that cannot happen because of the simple fact that we cannot
afford to get all the fossil fuels out of the ground needed to cause
the projected temperature rise.

You all should be arguing about another problem such as how to mix
the solar, wind, tidal or wave generation systems into a national grid.
How to decide on what backup system is needed, can we build economic
storage systems ?
Should we build nuclear power stations, can we afford them anyway ?

Surely there is enough to argue about there without insulting everyone
with a different opinion !

We must leave oil & coal before oil & coal leave us !

ant

There is no such scientific term as "denier", you fool. According to your stupid theory, the phlogiston theory was factually correct when it enjoyed a consensus of scientific support.

The data disprove your theory, you are denying the science, and you are being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

You know perfectly well that you have been completely disproved many times over, and have nothing to answer but only endless evasion and circularity and propaganda.

@Bazz
I agree.

@Jardine K. Jardine
Infantile!

@CHERFUL
"excuse my sceptiicism, Theyve been claiming the Barrier Reef has been dying since the early 1970's"

2012 - The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
"Based on ... (2,258 surveys of 214 reefs over 1985–2012), we show a major decline in coral cover from 28.0% to 13.8% (0.53% y-1), a LOSS of 50.7% of initial coral cover." http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

There are hundreds of scientific research papers like this, see summary w more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

@mhaze
Someone else pointed out the falsehood/lie too. Aitkin wrote: "the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming" WITH an embedded url ref to: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/8/c/Changes_In_The_Climate_System.pdf
Nowhere does the UK Met Office write they "agree that there was a hiatus in warming" in that doc.

Obviously Aitkin was misleading his readers referring them to a Doc that does NOT SAY what he claimed it did.

It is 'possible' that was unintentional or incompetence but what he wrote is untrue on the face of it. I called it a 'Lie'.

I do not believe it was 'human error' by an 'expert' in academic writing but intellectually dishonest aka a Lie. What Aitkin said was false misleading, period! Credibility = Zero!

Global warming: How Skepticism became Denial by Spencer Weart
The conversation on global warming started in 1896 [...] The author points out that climate experts were initially strongly SKEPTICAL of the theory of global warming; it took a variety of EVIDENCE to gradually convince them that warming due to human emissions was likely.
"The public was guided away from this conclusion by a professional PR effort, motivated by INDUSTRIAL and IDEOLOGICAL concerns. DENIERS of the scientific consensus avoided NORMAL scientific DISCOURSE and resorted to AD HOMINEM ATTACKS that cast doubt on the ENTIRE Scientific community.."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340210392966?journalCode=rbul20

Today it's the DENIERS who cry out that they are subject to ad hominem attacks. All it is are people critical of the content and falsity of their arguments and Deniers ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them.
-

@Leo Lane
Yes Robert Carter was 'a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics'. He was not and has never been a 'specialist' in modern climate science. Carter has never published a single peer-reviewed paper in a reputable Journal on Climate Science in today's world. Carter was not and never has been accepted by the large body working climate scientists aka ~30,000 peers.

A simple search proves NO Peer-Reviewed Papers beyond doubt:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=30&q=%22RM+Carter%22+climate&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

The 'opinion piece/article' by Carter on wryheat was extracted from WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

Opinions, Blogs, Forums, News, TV are not 'the science.' Carter's article is based on his 'book opinions' not The Science
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Counter-Consensus-Palaeoclimatologist-Speaks-Independent/dp/1906768293

Credible Science is found in peer-reviewed literature, no where else.

Another Palaeoclimatologist has opinions about Deep Time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=33m1s

He and ~30,000 others disagree with Carter.

Carter's 'opinions' on climate focused on politics, policy response, mitigation, media, public opinion, public debates, models & economics. A tiny part was about The Science.

Carter was a non-expert, non-climate scientist, political activist no different than Al Gore is. The only ones who agreed with Carter are other climate science deniers/ideologically opposed activists. Their 'beliefs/ideology/opinions' are irrelevant to The Climate Science too!
eg http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553

Review of some Carter statements:

"This phalanx of support notwithstanding there is no scientific consensus as to the danger of human-induced climate change."

FALSE

"In a democracy, the media serve to convey to the public the facts and hypotheses of climate change"

IRRELEVANT - a political social issue.

"Natural climate changes, both warmings and coolings, are indeed a societal hazard."

TRUE

"Attempting instead to ‘stop climate change’ by reducing human carbon dioxide emissions is a costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation to dangerous change as and when it occurs, and irrespective of its sign or causation."

UNSCIENTIFIC OPINION ON MITIGATION - NO EVIDENCE

"The issue now is no longer climate change as such, the reality of which will always be with us."

FALSE - This time it's different - DENIAL of THE Science

Source: The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change, Carter 2007 http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/3130/
-

Thomas O'Reilly

What you're calling "infantile" is merely me holding up the mirror to your own ad hominem and appeal to authority.

Now. The difference between your beliefs and mine, is that
a) you have never done a reality check whether the government can achieve the *net* benefits you assume
b) your beliefs are unfalsifiable
c) you actively ignore and flee disproofs.

Mine by contrast identify how they could be falsified, and then challenge you and all warmist to falsify them - WITHOUT ANSWER.

Now hurry up and post your calculations showing how you have taken account of the subjective values of all those positively and negatively affected by your policy proposals, all over the world now and indefinitely into the future. Make sure you account for the counter-factual scenarios - in units of a lowest common denominator - and justify any discount for futurity.

Go ahead. Or admit you can't.

READ the posts that *completely and totally* disprove and demolish your infantile belief system, and POST the calculations that answer the questions your are trying, but failing, to wriggle out of.

Do you think the intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty of your evasions are not obvious, you squirming fool?

Stop posting irrelevance, and hurry up and answer my challenges. According to you, we're all going to boil to death if you don't HURRY!

While Aitkin's article is 'entertaining' it is erroneous, narrow minded, with ad hominem ridicule. It is not scientific, logical or true.

Smart people look past Aitkin's 'opinions & beliefs', the single paper to seek credible Resources that define Skepticism and Denialism.

Like Dictionaries - Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. It is often directed at domains, such as morality, religion, or the nature of knowledge"

Like say A SKEPTICAL MANIFESTO
The following is excerpted from Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer, 1997, W. H. Freeman.

Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held.
Skepticism must be followed with something rational, or something that does PRODUCE PROGRESS.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned (1956, p. 112) "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. It’s passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/

Shermer: "These meaningful patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs" articles @ http://goo.gl/txZumu

"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth."
Search http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=denial+vs+skeptical&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Why Is It Called Denial?
http://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

2009 Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? - WHERE Black is white and white is black!
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress
http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Progress/dp/1594202303

Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771300036X

Skeptical Appeal: The Source-Content Bias
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12153/full

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks
"...study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs)."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644010802055576?scroll=top&needAccess=true
-

TO'R

Stop squirming and evading and answer the question.

Thomas O'Reilly,

What exactly do you mean by reef cover?.

Do you mean the top of the reef that has been bleached white by the sun
.
To my way of thinking, this looks more like the reef defending its deeper living self
by developing the equivalent of a white shield to reflect the sun away.

Kind of like human sunscreen.

@CHERFUL
Go away, read the paper, I'm not your kindergarten teacher, I don't tolerate trolls.

@Jardine
WHAT QUESTION? YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION? When you find it, take a year out to think about what you're going to say to make me answer it.

@Leo Lane extolls "more rabid lunacy" snipped

Re: "They do not define “denier”, without which, their paper is meaningless."

Source URL http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/604/html

Quotes:
"We outline the DISTINCTION between true skepticism and denial with several case studies."

"How can scientists facilitate debate but resist denial? We address those questions in three ways: We first describe the tools of politically-inspired denial.
We then report a case study that illustrates the path by which skeptical members of the public are able to contribute to science.
We conclude by underscoring the need for scientists to be transparent and to respond to legitimate public concerns, and how the triage between denial and skepticism can be achieved."

"Public Debate Versus Denial
- then those statements are more indicative of the denial of scientific facts than expressions of skepticism
- denial commonly invokes notions of conspiracies
- Attributes such as “hoax” or “biggest scam in the world to date” also make up the largest share of affective responses by people who reject climate science
- common feature of denial...involves personal and professional attacks on scientists
- People who deny scientific facts ... are by and large not skeptics.... they shy away from scientific debate by avoiding the submission of their ideas TO PEER REVIEW."

AND
"the discursive activity of those individuals is largely limited to blogs and the media, accompanied by complaints to institutions and journals which can have no purpose other than to stifle, rather than promote, scientific debate."

- Those individuals include Aitkin, Marohasy, Carter, Abbot, Nicol, Nova, Curry, Monckton, the IPA, and OLOs comments Forum.

The Solution for genuine people? READ the original Science YOURSELF FIRST, and then ask for help from those with more knowledge than you.
-

Advice from bigmouth:” READ the original Science YOURSELF FIRST”
OK bigmouth, refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You do not have any such science, as you have been repeatedly asked to refer us to it, with the result that you talk nonsense and give no reference to any such science.
The term “denial” is just another baseless, dishonest slogan of fraud promoters like yourself, bigmouth.
There is no science to deny, so the term “denier” is just another fraud promoting lie.

Leo

Elsewhere you stated: "The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”."

Only a fool dismisses studies such as the one you have dismissed, Leo (OLO 10/9/16 11.53 pm):

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

A sign of the times:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines

Naturally Leo you have data to show that small planes and airlines are not impacted by turbulence created through extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
You can provide DATA that shows all this is but a hoax; a changing climate has been posited for the turbulence being created.

A quote from article:

"Williams said that at heights of around 10 to 12km (6-7 miles), a typical cruising altitude for a modern passenger jet plane, temperature changes caused by increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have the effect of making different layers of airflow move at increased speeds relative to each other. "

You should get in touch with these firefighters and tell them they are completely wrong:

http://www.outsideonline.com/2080116/unacceptable-risk-firefighters-front-line-climate-change

Leo

Scientists in reference provided pull apart notion of climate changing just through natural variability:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/betsy-mccaughey-wake-up-obama-climate-change-has-been-happening-forever/

First sentences:

"The scientists unanimously qualify this article as misleading and flawed in its reasoning. The author asserts that “many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather – which would mean bigger glaciers.” As the scientists point out, however, glaciologists have collected “crystal clear” evidence for accelerating glacier melt and retreat, which scientists overwhelmingly attribute to human-induced global warming, and scientific consensus warns that a continued rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce further global warming."

A photo already referenced shows broken ice within a few kilometres of the North Pole, only a fool would not see the significance of that. The satellite photo is in perfect accord to what the scientists are stating in their critique.

A mathematician has worked out that should the average sea ice extent be taken for the whole year for maximum to minimum; then, the last year provides the lowest extent ever recorded. The last maxima was the lowest ever recorded. Normally, only maximum and minimum measures are provided officially for winter and end of the melting season.
Usually by mid September refreezing begins and the minima is recorded; that stage may not have yet been reached in 2016. Regardless, evidence suggests that the second lowest extent of sea ice will be recorded; and the 2012 record will remain.

Back to Don Aitkin: The distinction between true scepticism and denial

BA says "And I find myself saying, yet again, this awful, poorly argued, self-seeking paper has passed peer review? What have we come to in the journal world?"

Such as Marohasy's Abbot's self-seeking papers?

eg. They had to go all the way to the seriously flaky Wessex Institute of Technology, as no decent journal would touch it? http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/196/34171

Much could be said about about the Marohasy/John Abbot MO and their so-called "Papers" in "scientific journals" as displayed and promoted by Marohasy here and on their ClimateLab website.

Google search results include things like:

Wessex Institute of Technology is a big Scam and their conferences are ...
..... Wessex Institute is a big money making machine for Mr Brebbia by offering very ...
Dubious conference invitations. Just spam, or do these meetings ...
http://www.researchgate.net/.../Dubious_conference_invitations_Just_spam_or_do_th...

Jul 9, 2013 - These bogus and predatory conference invitations are becoming just ... I'd say that I get such mails for both journals and conferences on a ... may i ask you about the case of Wessex Institute of Technology(WIT)?do you have ...
List of Bogus Journals. Fake Journals. Bogus Science ie Pseudoscience Wessex Institute of Technology ·

REF: http://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F&gws_rd=cr

LOL - doesn't surprise me one little bit.

Intelligent and wise people plus REAL GENUINE SKEPTICS always check and triple check the purported 'facts' against the 'claims' being made. And much like 'Deep Throat' recommended on Watergate, always follow the money. ;-)

eg http://theaimn.com/coalition-environment-committee/ and
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

One needs to make the effort to track down their various papers and look at the whole picture and not only the jigsaw pieces spread here and there.

Happy Daze or Happy Learning, it's up to yourself.

People can learn a lot from my more info LINKS, if they bother to look.

What you do will make little difference to the Arctic Sea Ice or the GBR. But accurate true knowledge can make a big difference in what you choose to do.

George Lakoff: How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
-

@Leo Lane @Jardine K. Jardine 'insist' on "refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate" blah blah blah

I have read every page of every IPCC Report. I understand it and also did extra research into the published science papers the IPCC reports relied upon. When I ogt stuck I used a Glossary, and Dictionary and then went to climate scientists to ask them questions and where additional info might be available to help me.

I spent about 15 years in my downtime doing my own homework, including in the other side which is the Energy Use Data for this planet past, present and future BEFORE I finally signed off and said, well that's all logical and true.

NO FREE DRINKS AT THIS BAR~!

I will not suffer fools, shills, nor trolls. It's said that "God helps those who help themselves" - you will get no help from me! Ever!

The evidence you seek is to be found here http://www.ipcc.ch and here http://scholar.google.com.au

GO FISH~!

The Dumbed Down Version of climate science for 3 year olds is as follows:

Q: When did scientists first discover that carbon dioxide levels were rising in the atmosphere due to human activity and that this could cause global warming?

A: The Earth’s climate is continually changing. Since the planet was born some 4.5 billion years ago, it has undergone ice ages and warm periods due to natural changes in its orbit around the sun and other factors on its surface. But since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been the main factor in the Earth’s warming.

Since pre-industrial times, the Earth’s surface has warmed some 1.5 degrees celsius. And with 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide being released into the air every second, we are on track to get a lot warmer still. So when did we realize climate change was happening and who is responsible?
[snipped]

by — BARBARA MICKELSON more at http://earthtalk.org/human-caused-global-warming

Don't waste your time asking again.

For me you two do not exist.
-

Cobber,
At the beginning you mentioned YECs, singling them out as being "unutterably convinced that they are correct". Yet, I'm not sure why you'd single them out as being different to yourself. For being totally convinced that your view is correct is a very human and almost universal trait. We pretty much all think we're right, most of the time. It's part of the psychology of people and how they hold to their convictions.

But I would agree with you that it would be good to read some of their stuff.

Another post by bigmouth, full of words, and, as usual, no substance. He again posts no reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, while claiming, untruthfully that such science exists, when it clearly does not.
From the nonsense paper that bigmouth references:” there was a 97 percent consensus among scientists that climate change was caused by humans.”
That was taken from the peer reviewed paper of the failed cartoonisr, John Cook, who runs the laughable fraud promotion at the deceptively named web-site “Skeptical Science.”
Cook’s paper was shown to be self-evident nonsense:” -" Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
While having no genuine science to which he can refer, bigmouth refers us to fraud-promoting rubbish like this.

Dan

What parts of Physics or Chemistry fit into your YECS?

An interesting piece of history found by a Christian Climate Scientist:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

Leo

As quoted before:

"The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”."

Only a fool dismisses studies such as the one you have dismissed, Leo (OLO 10/9/16 11.53 pm):

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Leo Lane,

Its futile to go through these processes with Tommy. Its standard operating procedure for people like him to make unsupported claims about a special understanding and expertise and then decline to demonstrate it on the basis that's beneath them. We all know that he's just trying to salve low self-esteem by creating a fantasy-world where he knows something but you won't get anywhere trying to demonstrate it because, even if you did so so to the satisfaction of others, it'd probably go over his head.

He asserts that he fully understands " every page of every IPCC Report". But when I make an observation about AR5 noting that AR4 had overstated various climate extreme issues, he's suddenly becomes incredulous and asks for the evidence. Perhaps he read AR5 ...but understood it,ummmm?

And if you do ever corner him in an error (see above) he just throws a tantrum and goes full ad hom like calling others Mr R Sole - which is the height of sophistication among 3rd graders - and seeks to elicit support by creating new nicks - whatever happened to Jane P?

In the same way as you can't rationalise with an 8 yr old you can't rationalise with these types. All you can do is ignore them and tell them that the adults want to talk now.

What you say about bigmouth is valid, mhaze, but he has aleady made such a fool of himself that he has no effect. No one takes him seriously.
His rat cunning has misled him into believing he has more than the very ordinary intellect he possesses. His attempts to talk down to people who have left him fo dead, show him to be the fool he is. The only support he attracted, JeanP, did him more harm than good.
bigmouth will dissipate like a bad smell.

Leo

Some psychological projection going on here:

"What you say about bigmouth is valid, mhaze, but he has aleady made such a fool of himself that he has no effect. No one takes him seriously."

You are the fool who dismisses a truly International paper; involving 80 researchers from 12 countries; with hundreds of peer reviewed papers to support the views expressed.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Hundreds of peer reviewed science papers are not science according to you Leo, what a doozy of a notion.

Aaaarrrgh, stretch, moaaaaaaaaannn, shaking head, craking my knucles, and YAAAAWWWWWWNNNNING .... did I hear someone mention my name?

Nah, must be dreaming.

Sorry, please do carry on.

The flea gives us a description of lawyers in some parallel universe, bearing no resemblance to our reality. emerity to suggest that you are anything but an unqualified ignoramus, would you, flea?
You say I acknowledged I have no science qualification”. I have no tertiary science qualification, flea. My Secondary Level includes Honours in both Mathematics AND an A Level in Physics. Chemistry was B level, but I expect that puts me way ahead of an ignoramus like you, flea.
Here is another idiotic gem from the ignoramus:” Your comments in relation to Carter are nothing more than a fallacious deferral to authority commentary”.

The amount of greenhouse gas forcing in the atmosphere has been measured since 1979 by NOAA. A huge degree of hubris is required to deny these measures. “
You seem unaware that a peer reviwed paper in 2009 de Freitas et al, of which Carter was an author, showed that the warming was natural, and left no room for the assertion by the fraud promoters of human caused warming. The fraud promoters brought out a rebuttal, Foster et al, which Carter easily refuted, after some difficulty with the publisher, which, outrageously, initially blocked publication of Carter’s refutation of the rebuttal.
The disgraceful behaviour of the fraud promoters was shown in the climategate emails. Make an effort to access facts, flea, before you advertise what an ignoramus you are.
You obviously have no idea what your ridiculous phrase ”fallacious deferral to authority” means, because it is meaningless. It could only have been written by an ignoramus.The peer reviewed paper on climate is the one that bigmouth says does not exist. Just another lie by bigmouth. bigmouth also says Carter was not a climate scientist. No one told the United States Senate that when he gave evidence on climate to them. No one told the Court that, when he gave evidence on the lies in Al Gores film. I wonder why bigmouth did not speak up.Possibly he does not want to be ridiculed, for telling stupid lies.

Hi Ant,
I'm not totally sure what you're asking me, but I'll answer with a quote from one of the main YEC organisations.

"Our organisation absolutely rejects the theory of evolution, but we have done so after carefully scrutinising both the biblical and scientific records. We did not do this lightly. After critically examining what we can learn through operational science [i.e. physics, chemistry etc.] and comparing that to the historical philosophy called evolution, too many lines of evidence point away from evolution and toward biblical creation for us to not accept the latter."

Hi Dan

Physics and Chemistry do not prove the existence of God, they do provide much data in relation to the natural world. They do relate to climate science; many science disciplines show how climate change has had an impact in particular science areas. An example is due to thawing og permafrost in Siberia, anthrax has been found at three locations and humans have had to be treated (2016).

Leo

Thank you, you prove my point, quote:

"The flea gives us a description of lawyers in some parallel universe, bearing no resemblance to our reality. emerity to suggest that you are anything but an unqualified ignoramus, would you, flea?"

Your the one who places climate scientists in such a parallel universe.
When your sentiments about climate scientists are placed in the context of the discipline of law, you react aggressively.

This is what I wrote in relation to another article:

In the past you have stated you are a retired lawyer and acknowledge you have no science qualification. We know that some lawyers develop a criminal history due to misappropriating funds. As a result, it becomes easy for people to say that all those employed as a lawyer are corrupt, tell lies, or create a hoax; it gets pretty grim for lawyers. Especially when those employed as lawyers pride themselves in the work that they do. It becomes harder when groups are paid to rubbish all those involved in working in the law field.
Also, those paid to rubbish lawyers are encouraged to create a climate where people generally are encouraged to be critical of lawyers.

The work lawyers do is highly involved and not really well understood by people in general. Clearly, in such a situation lawyers would be bewildered by the uncalled for criticism. Especially when those doing the criticism have little knowledge about the specialised field of being a lawyer. (OLO, 11 September 2016, 7.25 am).

You say you have the school boy qualifications of: "My Secondary Level includes Honours in both Mathematics AND an A Level in Physics. Chemistry was B level...."
What you don't have is a Phd in Science; your qualification doesn't rate. No doubt if Thomas reads this he will have a good laugh. Check out the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Once again you use the fallacious argument of appeal to authority in relation to your source.

Ant,
I'm guessing that the permafrost might melt regardless of what we believe about why it is melting now.

You speak of 'proof', which is a strong word. Do you think science is good at proving things? I'm particularly thinking of the deeper questions of life; something that isn't mundane. What has science proven lately?

The recent lie by bigmouth, that Professor Robert Carter had published no peer reviewed papers, (not one, according to bigmouth).
Professor Carter has published 100 peer reviewed papers. His publication record is here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
Carter’s science is impeccable, and he has completely demolished the AGW fraud, on CO2, and on human causation.
Fraud supporters, like bigmouth, have no science to support their assertions, so cannot raise any scientific or rational opposition to the truth, as asserted by Carter.. The fraud promoter's tactic is to tell lies about Carter, as typified by bigmouth’s scurrilous, baseless, and easily refuted, lie.
The flea made the baseless comment that my demonstration, through Carter's science, that the AGW assertion fails was a fallacious appeal to authority. This baselessly assumes that Carter is not a recognized expert. Another false assumption by an ignoramus, perhaps influenced by bigmouth's ridiculous lies.

Leo

Put another way, there are something like 30,000 climate scientists, very few are skeptical.

So we have Carter's views standing against thousands of scientists; hence my comment your fallaciously of appealing to authority.

We know you have great ability to hold nonsense views, having suggested that a major study on Oceans does not comprise science.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Dan

Permafrost thaws when temperature is high for a long period, a few extremely hot days makes no difference to it thawing.
Thawing of permafrost in Siberia is becoming a major problem.

The flea says:” here are something like 30,000 climate scientists, very few are skeptical.”
Do you have a source for this, flea, or is it just the guess of an unqualified ignoramus?
Carter gave a careful, resoursed statement of the science. Neither you, nor any one else has put forward any scientific or rational basis to show him to be other than completely correct.
Comments by fraud promoters, like yourself and bigmouth, have been untruthful, or,at best, incorrect.
Carter is the climate expert who has shown the “consensus" pseudoscience to be baseless, without any scientific validity, and you make the ignorant assertion that he is not an expert on climate. Only the U>S Senate, and a court of law dealing with a question of climate accept him as an expert. An unqualified ignoramus, like you, asserts that he is not a climate expert.
I remind you that I have on numerous occasions invited you to submit anything which would show that you are not unqualified or not an ignoramus, and you have failed to do so, so I have accepted that as confirmation of my assertion.
If I made a criticism of an ocean study, it would have been specific, and obviously yo cannot answer i, so you suggest that I said something which I did not. Only to be expected from an unqualified, fraud supporting ignoramus.

A little summary of some recent climate related news

Timeline of Earth's Average Temps since Glaciation
http://xkcd.com/1732/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/study-warns-future-heatwaves-could-devastate-inland-plants/7842984

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-supran/scientific-organizations_b_11990708.html

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/from-science-committee-perch-rep-lamar-smith-attac/nsXm2/

Marohasy talks about Bushfires, this talks about arctic wildfires
http://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/wildfires-to-increase-in-the-subarctic

Malcolm Roberts calls for 'Aus-Exit' from UN IMF
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-calls-for-ausexit-from-monster-united-nations-in-first-speech-20160913-grfojm.html

ExxonMobil AGU
http://commons.commondreams.org/t/to-protect-integrity-of-climate-science-geophysical-society-urged-to-drop-exxon/29248

and Last Week

September 4 – 10, 2016 400.97 ppm
September 4 – 10, 2015 397.91 ppm

3.06 ppm

Ugly number. Nuff said?
http://www.co2.earth/weekly-co2

GISTEMP has posted for August with an anomaly of +0.98ºC, the hottest August on record & the 11th month in a row to be hottest (or equal hottest) for its month.

August was also the warmest month on record in absolute temperature pipping July 2016.

August’s anomaly stands as the 8th warmest month in the full record.
The average anomaly for 2016-to-date is running at +1.05ºC.

This compares with the average for the last 12-months of +1.03ºC and the average for the last calendar year (also presently the record calendar year) of +0.87ºC.

The remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.50ºC to gain the ‘warmest calendar year’ accolade. (last 4 months’ average of all years since 2000 have been above +0.50ºC.)

Anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings within the full record:
2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC … = 21th
2015.. 2 … +0.87ºC . = 16th
2015.. 3 … +0.91ºC . = 12th
2015.. 4 … +0.74ºC . = 53rd
2015.. 5 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
2015.. 6 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
2015.. 7 … +0.72ºC . = 60th
2015.. 8 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
2015.. 9 … +0.81ºC . = 23rd
2015. 10 … +1.07ºC … 6th
2015. 11 … +1.01ºC … 7th
2015. 12 … +1.10ºC … 4th
2016.. 1 … +1.15ºC … 3rd
2016.. 2 … +1.32ºC … 1st
2016.. 3 … +1.28ºC … 2nd
2016.. 4 … +1.08ºC … 5th
2016.. 5 … +0.93ºC … 10th
2016.. 6 … +0.80ºC … 25th
2016.. 7 … +0.85ºC … 20th
2016.. 8 … +0.98ºC … 8th
-
Tip: Read the science too!

The distinction between true scepticism and denial?

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole on September 8th 2016, derived from the MODIS sensor on the Terra satellite

1000 klm wide view - that's the North Pole where the lines connect.

http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NPole-Terra-20160908.jpg

Refs:
http://greatwhitecon.info/blog/

http://neven1.typepad.com/

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews

30K climate scientists?

Well it depends how you define 'climate scientists'. Those that specifically study the climate are climatologists but there are many other branches of science that also involve the study of the climate.

My determination is if they are actually involved in doing climate science as in "working" or "volunteering" in climate science connected research, actively studying climate issues and/or in the field and/or publishing new papers, whatever.

It's said in recent years (2000+) 18,000 people have qualified as climatologists. It would be reasonable to assume that this constitutes no more than half the total number of climatologists, on that basis the number will be upwards of 36,000?

There is no international register of climatologists so it's very hard to provide a specific number.

Some time ago I did read on a skeptics website that the number of climatologists was "only 31,000"

If you widen the definition of 'climate-scientists' to include related disciplines such as meteorologists and paleoclimatologists then the numbers will run into the hundreds of thousands.

Widen the definition further to include astrophysicists, atmospheric chemists, glaciologists and the like and you could probably add another 50,000.

If you were to extend the definition to include all overlapping disciplines such as sedimentologists, hydrologists and dendrochronologists COMPUTER MODELERS NASA BIOLOGISTS LIKE MAROHASY LAWYERS LIKE JOHN ABBOT then it's probable that the number of 'climate scientists' would be in the order of a million.

The key question is, is the science valid and supported by those in the climate field -- yes yes yes yes yes, and yes.

30,000 or 3,000 or 3 million ... does it matter that much?

For perspective there are 26,000 members of The Geological Society of AMERICA (GSA)

So it 'depends'. And doesn't matter, except that when one lines up the denier activist numbers of about 30 globally less than 10 have ever done published work in 'climate science' as we know it today.

And Physics tells us that an empty vessel makes the most noise. :-)

GAUWD !
You are STILL here arguing about something that may or may not be true
and it does not matter anyway !

Surely there is something else you could study.

My report on bigmouth’s scurrilous lying about Professor Robert Carter seems to have met with bigmouth’s approval, and he has no comment on why he told such a stupid lie.
I suppose he was satisfied with my explanation. Since bigmouth has no science, or valid argument against Carter’s flawless science, bigmouth believes he needs to take the only course of action open to a lying climate fraud promoter, namely, to tell lies about Carter in an attempt to damage Carter’s considerable reputation in climate science.
Being of limited intellect, bigmouth was stupid enough to tell an idiotic lie, in which he was immediately found out.
He still has the gall to appear on the forum, where everyone is aware of what a fool he is.
He is such a disgrace, he is not fit to access the Forum.

Leo

Thomas has previously stated he will not respond to garbage.

He has provided any number of references to science.

AS has already been proven, you know nothing about what comprises science by asserting the reference below does not comprise science. You have previously indicated that you only have school boy qualifications in science.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Robert Carter has been described as having had a "... long and distinguished career as a marine geologist...." But, his speciality is not climate science.

It's like a highly respected lawyer writing a paper on end stages in alimentary canal functions.

Carter has work published through Heartlands and IPA, two ideologically politically motivated denyer groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlighting-bob-carters-selective-science.html

An aside:

There are suggestions that the scale for measuring Typhons/Cyclones/Hurricans should include a category 6.

At one stage Meranti was the second strongest Typhon ever recorded, it's impact on a Phillipines Island is still not known:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/09/14/typhoon-meranti-blasted-taiwan-and-now-its-headed-to-china-as-a-category-4/#comments

Thirty one inches of rain is the highest amount recorded at the mountainous Taiwu Township in Taiwan.

You had the pea brained arrogance, flea, to criticise me for dismissal of that heap of crap you called “science” about the oceans.
I only quoted one paragraph, but I have looked at some more of the paper, now.
You do not seem to realize how your ignorance and dishonesty limit your mentality.
To seriously put to me that this is “science” makes you more than just ignorant. You are feeble minded. Consider this extract:” unless we change our ways, and quickly. Ocean warming and climate change are ultimately contributing to global homogenization of biodiversity, as vulnerable species become extinct and “non-native” species from different biogeographic regions spread, overlap, and become established across the world’s ocean.”
There is no scientific basis for this nonsense. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, as you well know.You have not referred us to any such science, and neither has bigmouth.
These clowns, kidding themselves they are scientists, spend taxpayers money to put out this baseless rubbish, and an ignoramus like you calls it “science”.I wonder how you manage to dress yourself in the mornings. Of course, I should not assume that you can.

Leo

The theme running through the paper you say is not science has the impact of CO2 running through it.

On page 452, there is this comment:
"This report, as a result, contains repeated calls and warnings about the need for dramatic reductions in the amount of CO2 we are emitting."

The paper was put together by 80 researchers from 12 countries. It has been referenced by hundreds of peer reviewed papers. It has been described as a meta-analysis of what is happening in Oceans, it has been published in September 2016 .

But, you say with your schoolboy knowledge of science, that it is not science.

I notice you did not make any comment about the 2.974 watts/square metre forcing created by greenhouse gases.

Leo you suggest:

"To seriously put to me that this is “science” makes you more than just ignorant. You are feeble minded. Consider this extract:” unless we change our ways, and quickly. Ocean warming and climate change are ultimately contributing to global homogenization of biodiversity, as vulnerable species become extinct and “non-native” species from different biogeographic regions spread, overlap, and become established across the world’s ocean.”
There is no scientific basis for this nonsense."

A number of times I've written over the last few years about how marine organisms are moving North and South of they're normal habitats; tropical fish off Sydney, species establishing in Tasmanian waters normally seen much further North. Just the other day I was reading about how species of marine organisms are unexpectedly being seen in Arctic waters.
Redmap gives a run down on the movement of marine organisms in Australia.

http://www.redmap.org.au

You first earned recognition as an ignoramus, flea, by your inability to grasp the concept of relevance: You say:” put together by 80 researchers from 12 countries. It has been referenced by hundreds of peer reviewed papers. It has been described as a meta-analysis”
This is irrelevant. There are endless instances of peer reviewed papers by fraud supporting scientists which are nonsense, like, as one instance, John Cook’s fraudulent paper about the mythical 97% of climate scientists falsely asserted to be backing the “consensus”, the “science” that Carter has shown to have failed..
What is relevant is the fact that the paper contains statements asserting human caused climate change when there is no science to justify such an assertion.
Did you not take science at school, flea? I am obviously way aahead of you, but for years I acted for a chemical storage company, so my education in science continued for long after I left school. You are struggling to grasp simple concepts, and your ignorance is obvious. You even make the ridiculous assertion that you and bigmouth have posted links to science showing human caused global climate change.
Stupid as you are you are not stupid enough to believe that, so you are deliberately lying.
If I am mistaken, just identify the link to the science showing any measurable human effect on climate.

Leo

No comment about Redmap which had been set up to monitor movement of marine species around Australia. The reference provided a complete contradiction of your previous statement.
Your response was to provide stupid aggressive comments; which have no bearing on the reference provided.

You insult thousands of climate scientists; as you suggest you know better than those working in various climate science disciplines.

You have not been able to say anything sensible in relation to the forcing going on in the atmosphere (2.974 watts/square metre for all greenhouse gases in 2015 and rising).

As stated earlier, Carter was a well respected marine geologist, he was not a climate scientist. He had material published by the disreputable Heartlands and IPA extreme right wing agencies.
The reference I provided about Carter had not been written by Cook; it had been written by a climate scientist.

Only a fool; without any qualifications, can suggest they know better than thousands of Professionals.

"30K climate scientists?

Well it depends how you define 'climate scientists'."... Mr O'

Well if you believe Zimmerman/Doran (the people who created the 97% meme) there are one 79 climate scientists worth listening to, and two of those were dills.

</sarc>

Mr O' showed the monthly anomalies for GISTemp for 2015/6.

By way of comparison this is UAH:

Year Month Anomaly Rank (out 243)
2015......1......0.3.... 42
2015...... 2...... 0.19...... 96
2015...... 3...... 0.17...... 110
2015...... 4...... 0.08...... 189
2015...... 5...... 0.27...... 49
2015...... 6...... 0.31...... 39
2015...... 7...... 0.15...... 127
2015...... 8...... 0.25...... 61
2015...... 9...... 0.23...... 70
2015...... 10...... 0.41...... 23
2015...... 11...... 0.33...... 36
2015...... 12...... 0.45...... 18
2016...... 1...... 0.54...... 9
2016...... 2...... 0.83...... 1
2016...... 3...... 0.73...... 3
2016...... 4...... 0.71...... 4
2016...... 5...... 0.55...... 8
2016...... 6...... 0.34...... 32
2016...... 7...... 0.39...... 25
2016...... 8...... 0.44...... 20

I wonder why NASA (Goddard) don't use satellites for the data collection? What does the 'S' in NASA stand for? Surface? :)

I know why alarmists prefer to use GISTemp.

mhaze

You say :

"I know why alarmists prefer to use GISTemp."

So they were using Mark 1 satellites in the 1880s?
In other words you don't compare apples and oranges.

If you knew how satellites take temperature in relation to land stations you would not be asking the question.

There are good articles in The Conversation in relation to the matter.

But, as stated many times you do not need a thermometer to know temperature is going up.

The flea says: :”Only a fool; without any qualifications, can suggest they know better than thousands of Professionals..”
Quoting things I never said again, flea. Even you should be sick of your lies.
What I did point out was the deficiency of science to support the assertions, which I specified, in the paper.There is a false premise in the assumption that human caused CO2is affecting the climate.

The best that you can do is to lie about what I said. You have no science to counter my assertion, because there is no such science.. You lie about what I said, and avoid the topic where you have shown yourself to be such an ignoramus .My qualifications are certainly better than yours, flea, judging on output. We do not know what your qualifications are, because of your pig-ignorant refusal to supply them when asked, but obviously you have none, and have the gall to be dismissive of secondary level qualifications. I ask you again, flea, what are your qualifications in science? If you have none, you will not answer.
What comment on Carter are you talking about? You say:” The reference I provided about Carter had not been written by Cook; it had been written by a climate scientist.” Your muddled posts are not coherent.
You point out that I have not commented on matters raised by you.
They are irrelevant,being premised on a human effect on climate, so will not be relevant until you establish the unsupported proposition that there is a measurable human effect on climate. That will not happen.Unlike you, I always answer a properly based question.
You cannot take a point, can you flea? But you are only an ignoramus fool with no qualifications, and no understanding of science. You have no basis on which your assertions should be considered. Of course they should be disregarded until you stop lying and refer us to science which shows that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate. Human emissions of CO2 are 3% against nature’s 97%.The effect is trivial and not measurable.

Leo

Where scientists are saying that CO2 and radiated infrared create warmth you vehemently oppose what thousands of scientists are saying.
Your sophistry, aggression and accusations of lying amount to nothing.

Your constant comment is that there is no interaction between CO2 and radiated infrared.
Yes, or No?

Where is this experiment wrong, Leo?

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The 11 year ARM study is a more sophisticated study conducted in the natural environment.

Please show experiments that disprove the conclusions drawn from these examples.
Clearly, aggressive abuse is a non answer, a reference to Carter is also a non answer.
The question is about science.

You say you have knowledge about science, so should be able to provide experimental research that provides data, not mere words.

Also, you have not made any comment about the forcing in the atmosphere of 2.974watts/square metre for all greenhouse gases in 2015. The forcing has been tabulated since 1979.

The flea says:” Your constant comment is that there is no interaction between CO2 and radiated infrared.”
Yes, or No?

Show me where I made such a comment even once, flea.
Is it possible for you to ever tell the truth, flea, or do you suffer some affliction which precludes it.
The interaction is between all greenhouse gases and infrared, not just the minor greenhouse gas, CO2
You have bleated about the interaction of CO2 and infrared for some time now, but never said how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate.
I note that you have no qualifications whatsoever in science.

Leo

You really are a comedian; aggressive word games have nothing to do with science..

You stated:

"You have bleated about the interaction of CO2 and infrared for some time now, but never said how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate."

If you don't understand that, why do you bother continuing with your foolish comments?

So where is your experimentation that shows CO2 has no impact on climate.
I provided a clip showing an experiment which displays CO2 interacting with natural light.

Not able to produce experiments displays how your comments are based on film flam.

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The flea says:”
So where is your experimentation that shows CO2 has no impact on climate.”
So where did I say that, flea. I pointed out that you were lying again when you asserted that I had so commented, and asked you to identify the comment which you baselessly assert that I made. Where and when do you say I made it. Produce a copy, as I do when I refer to one of your comments. If it is just another of your lies, then say so, and stop wasting every-ones’ time.
I asked you” how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate."
Your reply:” If you don't understand that, why do you bother continuing “
Of course I understand, it is because you know nothing about science, and are feeble minded enough to make stupid assertions. I asked you, because you will have a different view to me, and I want to know what it is.
Of course, in your pig ignorant way, you will refuse to answer, so we have a record, that I have asked a pertinent question, and you do not answer, because you do not conduct yourself in a civil manner.
I ask you again, How do you think the interaction of CO2 with infrared is relevant to your failure to reference any science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. I have told you why, so you either agree with me, or tell us what you believe is your reason.

Leo

I provided a challenge for you to provide an experiment to show that there is no forcing between CO2 and light.

You are not able to do so; trying to hide behind words, aggression, and misrepresenting what I stated is meaningless.

Where is your science, Leo? Where are your experiments I have CHALLENGED you to provide?

I provided an experiment involving natural light and CO2.

http://vimeo.com/32056574

Mythbusters have also created an experiment to show the same effect.

Guys, I don't generally follow climate change discussions, mostly because of the abusive nature of the comments.

If this is a serious topic, as you all seem to be convinced that it is, on both sides, then surely it is worth having a serious discussion about.

In general, a serious and productive discussion starts with the willingness of both sides to properly examine the other side's arguments with an assumption of good faith.

So here's a challenge, for what its worth: what do you agree on? If there isn't anything at all after all this time, then perhaps its time you started to work out what it is you are trying to achieve by your constant bickering?

Here's another challenge, which might be a little harder: try to argue, just for the fun of it, for the other side.

The flea considers any truthful description of his behaviour to be abuse.
He made an untruthful assertion of what I had said about CO2 and infrared. I asked him to supply a copy of the comment as I always do, if I deal with one of his comments.
Because he has lied about what I said, he is unable to do so, but has the unmitigated gall to call on me to justify the comment, which I never made.
He ignored my request, and says:” I provided a challenge for you to provide an experiment to show that there is no forcing between CO2 and light.

You are not able to do so; trying to hide behind words, aggression, and misrepresenting what I stated is meaningless.”
The flea. avoids answering questions about his assertions by lying.
If what you say is true, flea, you can easily verify it, but you have ignored all requests to do so, because you are lying.

Craig Minns thinks he has a solution.
I doubt if it could overcome the flea’s tactic of lying about what I have said, and then pointing out that I cannot verify what I have not said, but the flea has concocted, and falsely asserted to be my comment.

I don't presume to think I have a "solution" Leo Lane. I merely suggested a couple of ways to help you with improving the quality of discussion, possibly even arriving at a consensus as to ways in which the discussion can move ahead, rather than being constantly stuck in schoolyard-level name calling.

Did that EVER work for you?

Leo

Still haven't found any science experiments to uphold your comments?

I have challenged you Leo, which is far different to what you are accusing me of.

Please provide experiments that uphold your view.

They are not my comments, flea.
They are comments concocted by you and falsely asserted to be mine. You are making an even bigger fool of yourself than usual.
Show us where I made these comments, and provide a copy as I always do if I refer to a comment of yours.
You are completely irrational. You cannot believe that your ridiculous lies are a clever tactic.
You have no science to support your position. There is no science to demonstrate any measurable human effect on climate. Your dishonesty is remarkable, flea.

Leo

When callenging you to provide an experiment upholding your view; you make statements that have no relevance.

You protest too much; regurgitating the same answer.

Can't fulfil the challenge, Leo?

I've been able to provide an experiment, plus mentioned others in passing.

Here is the science on the effect of CO2. I do not respond to the fabricated comments which the flea falsely asserts were mine

Professor Carter gives an excellent summary of the failed hypothesis regarding the effect of CO2.
“The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate. More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the "little Ice Ages" in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the "global warming", alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere
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.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

Carter’s science cuts the legs from under the flea's baseless assertion.
You have reminded us all, flea, that you are a dishonest failure, trying to be clever, without the equipment up top to achieve it. Did you really think it was clever to fabricate comments and assert that I had made them. Your lies achieved nothing, and you reminded us of your dishonesty, and that you have no knowledge of, or respect for science..

Leo

I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist.

My challenge was for you to provide an EXPERIMENT to support your claims.

An experiment has a hypothesis, collects replicateable data to provide proof or otherwise for the hypothesis. Your reference is a non peer reviewed paper, it is not an experiment.

Try again to fulfil the challenge, Leo.

Computer modelling had nothing to do with the experiment provided.

Here is a reference to the Mythbusters experiment, which has been set up in quite a novel way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

.When you show me the comments I made, flea,I will respond appropriately, as I always do.
There wil be no response to the comments which you fabricated and falsely assert are mine.
What a joke: the flea deludes himself that he has issued a challenge.
His biggest challenge is to stop lying.There is a real challenge for you, flea.
When and where was I supposed to have made the comments, flea?
Supply a copy of the comments from their source.
If you have any science to show any flaw in Carter’s impeccable science, please do not keep it to yourself, unless you like being seen as a loser.

Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley

Leo

You cannot meet the CHALLENGE.

I have seen a huge number of science papers Leo.

But, never have I seen a paper that purports to be serious science quoting an extreme right wing IPA person....John Roskam, or any other political person.

The first sentences from your reference:

"Whether dangerous human-caused climate change is a fact, possibly a fact or a fabrication depends on who you choose to believe. Many of us line up somewhere between probable and possible on this spectrum. (John Roskam, Australian Financial Review, 2006.)"

Roskum is not a scientist; the quote goes back to 2006, much has happened in the meantime.

BUT, you are not able to produce any science experiments to back up what you say, and come up with the same tired comments.

Yes flea, Professor Carter did indeed quote John Roskam, he also quoted Tony Blair.If you had bothered to look at the heading you would know that it deals with the myth of global warming. It deals with the media’s treatment of the myth.
Carter makes clear what he is dealing with, if you read the paper. He says:” , Emeritus Professor Gray, a distinguished climate scientist from the University of Colorado, said recently ‘Observations and theory do not support these ideas (of dangerous human-caused warming”
Your comments, flea, reflect your abysmal ignorance of science, and your failure to even read a paper upon which you have the temerity to make such a feeble minded comment.
Your mental state is reflected in your baseless assertion of comments you say I made, and when asked to supply proof, you refuse to do so. You do not even specify when and where you say the comments were made.
Your mental state is in marked deterioration, flea,or you are lying. The comments were not made by me. It would be a simple matter to prove if I had made the comments but the flea is unable to prove it.
Nevertheless, he issues a delusional “challenge” to me to provide proof of the comments which I never made. They are your comments flea, not mine, so challenge yourself, not me.
You are attempting to distract attention fro the fact that you cannot prove that you are not lying. How about if I challenge you to prove you are not lying about the comments you assert that I made?
If I made the comments, it is a simple matter to prove it, and to prove that you are not lying.

Geoff said:” Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

The comment you copied is by the flea (he calls himself ant), not by me.

That is a difficult question, from some points of view. Robert Carter discusses it in his book, but I moved office and cannot locate it at the moment
There are many different qualifications from which to begin as a climate scientist, so it depends a lot on the work the scientist does. Hansen is a statistician, but much of his work is on climate, so he is regarded as a climate scientist. He is wrong more often than right, but he is a recognised climate scientist.
Tim Flannery, I think, is always wrong, but he has qualifications, and is supported by the climate fraud promoters, who have a powerful influence in climate science.An important factor is whether a scientist is widely recognised as a climate scientist.
Carter is invariably proven to be right, so the fraud promoters deny that he is a climate scientist. They have no science, to counter his, so their dishonest response is to deny that a scientist, world renowned for his expertise in climate, is not a climate scientist. His primary qualification was in geology, and his expertise was in the history of climate, gained largely from examination of sediment and ice cores.
Michael Mann, who concocted the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph is a recognised climate scientist. He sues anyone who tells the truth about him.
I hope this gives you the gist of it.

Leo

You make excuses, you are not able to fulfil the challenge of providing an experiment to support your view.

Eunice Foote, was experimenting with water vapour, air and CO2 around 1856. Between 1856 and 2016 surely you must be able to produce an experiment; rather than, more than nay saying and abuse.

I said yesterday, "Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley"

Leo, I must apologise for directing the post to you!

It was intended to be directed to Ant. It should read:-

Ant, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley

Ant said yesterday:

I have seen a huge number of science papers Leo.

But, never have I seen a paper that purports to be serious science quoting an extreme right wing IPA person....John Roskam, or any other political person.
I think I have to say that the above statement is basically spot-on!

Ant, you have seen a lot of science papers, but have you read them and understood them?

Furthermore, you are probably correct when you say THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN a paper quoting an extreme right-wing person because if you did, you would immediately discount it as rubbish! You see, the nonsense of Climate Change and Global Warming is that is driven by left-wing politics! Those of us on the right recognize the political nature of the nonsense claims you make.

As Bob Carter said, what is a climate scientist? There are possibly more than twenty different specialties that can call themselves climate scientists, just as in any other field, say medicine, there are different specialties. For instance I did a science degree many years ago with a double major in physiology and biochemistry. My physiology major was largely in environmental physiology, which is the interaction between a living organism and its environment. Whilst I do not claim to be an environmental scientist, at least I have studied in the field.

As for Tim Flannery, I cannot find any evidence of him being an environmental scientist at all. He is better described an environmental activist. His primary degree was in English! Flannery is a missionary, an evangelical fool who has made some dangerous and very expensive non-scientific statements. Even a true believer such as you must be nervous of him.

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey

It is a huge call to say climate science is driven by left wing politics. A very heroic statement to make without any proof. It sounds like conspiracy theory. In relation to Carter I stated that he used a quote from an extremist right wing person, I made no comment about Carter being right wing.
Any science paper published with quotes from political ideology left or right are suspect.
Where in Nature, AAAS et al do you find political quotations in peer reviewed work about science.

ant thinks the ARM 11 study is significant, a game-changer, only because he doesn't understand 'the game' that he thinks it changes.

In fact the ARM study merely observed, in the wild so to speak, that which is utterly beyond dispute. CO2 absorbs heat. OK, so what? That's been known for 150yrs at least and isn't disputed. But ant then assumes that since it absorbs heat that proves GW and therefore AGW and therefore CAGW and therefore that we have to up-end society.

The study is the equivalent of observing how having sex sometimes leads to pregnancy. That is also undisputed but clearly one doesn't always or even often follow the other. Yet the prudish will claim that since its been observed its proof that sex must be avoided except when the participants want kids.

CO2 absorbs heat. But what then. What happens to that heat? What would have happened had the CO2 not absorbed it? Would H2O have done so? With that absorbed heat, does everything else remain as it was or does the very absorption cause other changes?

In the same way as we know that there are a variety of reasons why sex doesn't necessarily lead to pregnancy, we also know there are a vastly greater number of reasons why CO2 absorbing heat doesn't necessarily lead to enhanced GW.

The global's climate system is a vastly complex system that even our most advanced computers struggle to model in a rudimentary way. Thinking that you can take one small part of that vast system and, by observing that small part, extrapolate to the whole is screwy (continue to sexual analogy).

As I've said over and over, this whole scare revolves around the purported feedbacks and if someone observes them in the wild and can tie down their magnitude and sign (which the IPCC admits can't currently be done) then THAT observation will be of value. But the ARM 11 observations are a mere curiosity.

The outstanding feature of the flea’s participation here, his abysmal ignorance of science, has been picked up by mhaze, citing the flea’s misconception of the importance of the interaction of CO2 and infrared rays.
The flea bleats endlessly about this, which, as mhaze points out, is one minor factor in the workings of the carbon cycle.
He says:” What would have happened had the CO2 not absorbed it? Would H2O have done so? “
The important point is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas with which infrared interacts. It reacts with all greenhouse gases, of which H2O is the major gas, and CO2 a minor one
It is important to the climate fraud that CO2 be demonised. The fraud promoters want to show that CO2, a substance vital to all life on earth, causes global warming. Its contribution is very minor. Water vapour if is the main greenhouse gas.
I wonder what the fraud promoters want done abour water vapour, now that CO2 has been cleared. Will they tell a pack of lies to demonise water, and call it "pollution"?
The flea in his ignorance, made the stupid assertion that I had commented that CO2 did not interact with infrared. I know that I have never said anything as ignorant as that. I only know about a thousand times more than the flea does about science, so I do not know much, but I certainly knew that.
If the flea is not lying, he only has to supply a copy of the comment and specify where it appears. He has been on notice to do this ever since he made the false assertion. Having failed to do so verifies that he is lying.
You have not responded in any way, have you, flea, you have just allowed the passing of time to show that you are a liar as well as an ignoramus

Geoff, I think the reason that support for the climate fraud is left wing, is that a virulent and vicious green movement was started of which the book “Silent Spring” by the toxic liar Rachel Carson, was the founding document.
Climate fraud promoters, with all the brilliance of shithouse rats, having demonised CO2 , labelled it “pollution”, and the bone-headed greens took up support of the global warming fraud, as part of the fight against “pollution” as CO2 was falsely labelled.
The left are attracted to fraud and feel-good lies like blowflies to a pile of stinking dung, so there is substantial left wing support for the fraud. I would not be surprised if the flea is left wing, so I wonder why he opposes the notion that the fraud has left wing support.
Would you please clarify your position, flea? Your assertion is obviously wrong, so I wonder what you see as your basis for making it.

It is really pleasing that mhaze and Leo know better than thousands of climate scientists about the forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere. They would have us believe there is no relationship between extra CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere creating more water vapour. Once in the atmosphere water vapour amplifies the process of warming.

Water vapour is created through transpiration of plants and evaporation. Warmth is needed to create extra water vapour through evaporation, and the atmosphere must be warm to be able to carry it. The denier argument is to minimalist the role of CO2 to create warmth to allow more water vapour into the atmosphere.

So while water vapour is a greenhouse gas, without prior processes of warming the atmosphere water vapour would not be as big an issue.

Rain bombs, or micro bursts as mhaze likes to call them to minimise the concept, are becoming more prevalent. The estimated cost of the Louisiana recent storm is estimated to be 1.5 billion dollars, there have been 7 other significant storms in the USA in a period of slightly over a year. Those other storms have been deemed to be once in 500 year events.
In the case of Louisiana the Gulf of Mexico was far warmer than usual.

Leo

With this comment you have really excelled yourself:

"Geoff, I think the reason that support for the climate fraud is left wing, is that a virulent and vicious green movement was started of which the book “Silent Spring” by the toxic liar Rachel Carson, was the founding document."

A bit of toxic thinking there, Leo.

Leo, are you willing to take a DDT cocktail; if not, why not?

Well that wasn't too hard after all. Poor old ant has been banging on forever that the ARM 11 observations are a game changer but just a little nudging and suddenly he abandons that idiocy and we now find it only matters because it increases water vapour levels.

Th climate system is spectacularly complex that reducing its complexity to just one element is kindergarten stuff. ant has now doubled his complexity understanding by adding H2O to the mix.

So perhaps a little more nudging? Is ant aware that water vapour levels have been declining recently? How can that be when all this CO2 is absorbing heat and creating water vapour? Its a mystery, n'est pas?

And what happens to that water vapour? ant seems to think it turns in rain. But what else? Clouds perhaps? Don't clouds enhance cooling - albedo and all that? Snow perhaps? More albedo. More plant growth which both absorbs CO2 and enhances cooling. etc etc.

The alarmist likes to distill the whole issue down to one or two elements and pretend that as these change nothing else does. Surely they realise that there have to be at least some negative feedbacks otherwise the earth would have long ago turned into an uninhabitable fireball when CO2 levels were much higher than now.

There is very little that is certain in climate science. But one thing we can be certain about is that ant will return to treating the ARM 'study' as his go-to 'proof' because...well just because.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

"are you willing to take a DDT cocktail"

Well I'd prefer a martini but if needs be. DDT is quite safe for humans and ingesting it has been shown to be completely safe. It is however not safe for pests such as the malaria mossies. The green movements great 'victory' in demonising and banning DDT has been a disaster for the poorer parts of the planet and resulted in levels of deaths and misery that make things like the Holocaust and the Holodomor pale by comparison.

mhaze

Are you trying to be ironic, or just plain silly?

You stated:

"DDT is quite safe for humans and ingesting it has been shown to be completely safe....."

An abstract from google scholar says the complete opposite.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.211

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=impact+of+ddt+on+human+health&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK1cXzrp_PAhVDzz4KHSCtAFEQgQMIGTAA

Once again displaying how your commentary is unreliable.

"On whether DDT is acutely poisonous to humans, the eminent British scientist Kenneth Mellanby writes in his book The DDT Story: "I myself, when lecturing about DDT during the years immediately after World War II, frequently consumed a substantial pinch of DDT, to the consternation of the audience, but with no apparent harm to myself, either then or during the next 40 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3532273.stm

and plenty of other examples.

DDT is dangerous at very high levels of exposure. But then again so is water. And of course, water vapour is gunna destroy the planet. :)

No apparent concern about the millions who died as a result of the vilification of DDT?

mhaze

Millions die from emissions from fossil fuels or become quite ill without taking into account climate change. Your claim to higher moral ground doesn't work.
Remember, Exxon is now being investigated by a Federal Agency; PriceWaterhouseCoopers have been involved with the investigations apart from; a number of Attorney Generals from US States.

http://thinkprogress.org/sec-exxonknew-4bd7b1f68500#.gl319l2rs

mhaze you stated:

"Is ant aware that water vapour levels have been declining recently? "

So water vapour was not involved with the Louisianna floods, or huge Mississippi/Missouri, South Carolina, Texas floods ,or the 4 other major floods in the US; there are numerous other examples around the planet.

The flea continually raises the investigation into Exxon, as if the actions of the green motivated Attorney Schneiderman means anything other than Scneiderman is acting unlawfully.
He is about to be exposed:
“The Competitive Enterprise Institute today filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, seeking copies of any agreements his office signed that would protect internal communications stemming from his investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change record.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/31/as-exxonknew-collpases-conservative-think-tank-sues-ag-schneiderman-over-exxon-probe-records/

As I mentioned in a previous post, the AGs who signed up with Schneiderman are now keen to get out.

Do you apply your rule of “guilty until proven innocent" to Schneiderman, flea, or just to a clean company like Exxon?

So, we've switched from climate change to DDT?

Millions of deaths from DDT vilification? Worse than the Holocaust?

Didn't happen mhaze. Pure hyperbole.

Put up the numbers and how they were counted.

Yes Leo,

I told ant 10 months ago that the whole ExxonKnew story was rubbish and wouldn't go anywhere. Anyone who reads the actual source documents that the accusations are based on can see that its all a beat-up. I advised him then to read those source documents but he has assiduously failed to do so preferring to hang onto his fondly held wishes rather than seek the truth.

Most of the AGs who initially backed the subpoena are running a mile and those being attacked (eg CEI) are now the attackers.

That ant prefers to look the fool rather than seek the truth says a lot.

He's all over the place. He thinks DDt isn't safe because fossil fuel emissions aren't safe. Even if the claims about emissions are right (and they're not) what ones got to do with t'other is clear only to ant. Even more idiotic is the notion that water vapour levels can't be declining because there are floods as though floods are a new phenomena. Ever heard of Gilgamesh?

Bugsy,

"Didn't happen mhaze. Pure hyperbole."

Just because you don't know about doesn't mean it didn't happen, except in the most extreme existential sense.

Malaria kills around 1 million people per year. This is an improvement on the 1.5 to 2 million in the later part of last century.

DDT use dramatically reduces these numbers. For example (an there are stories like this throughout the developing world):

"When Sri Lankan authorities agreed to ban DDT during the mid-1960s, rates of malaria infection exploded from twenty-nine cases in 1964 to over 500,000 a mere five years later."

Prior to the campaign against DDT, malaria was being eradicated world-wide and had been eradicated in the developed world.

1 million unnecessary deaths per year over a 50 year time frame compared to 6million Holocaust deaths and 7-10 million Holodomor deaths.

QED

Yes, flea, Rachel Carson was a toxic liar. I acquainted myself with details, before I formulated that description.
Read the analysis of her lies, for yourself:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

How would you describe her, if you were truthful?

I would not take much notice of the insect, mhaze. He hates the truth, and will say anything to denigrate a statement of the truth.
He is a pest who is best ignored.
There is ample evidence of the deaths which occurred when DDT use was curtailed.
The legislation to ban it was introduced despite an official enquiry which reported, showing that there was no justification for a ban.
Its introduction was politically expedient, because of pressure able to be generated by the virulent green movement founded on Carson's lies.

Again, that didn't happen mhaze.

A quote from an opinion piece AGAIN. Please stop.

DDT was never banned for public health use the way you seem to think it was. When it wasn't used, it was generally not for environmental reasons, as you claim. Sri Lanka ceased using DDT for public health less than 2 years after Silent Spring was published because they thought they didn't need to. They still used it for agriculture though, so Rachel Carson had no influence on that decision.

Also, Sri Lanka resumed spraying not long after the malaria rate rose again, and guess what happened?

The mosquitoes were now resistant to DDT, because of the agricultural use. What a surprise!

The use of DDT for public health purposes, pretty much wasn't banned at all, but it was reduced in many places by replacing it with other insecticides that were more effective.

Whatever it is you think happened...

Didn't happen.

The ban on DDT which resulted in millions of deaths came about in this way:
Judge Sweeney, after 80 days of testimony from 150 expert scientists, ruled that DDT “is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man” and does “not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wild life. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case.”
The Environmental Defense Fund appealed Sweeney’s decision. The appeal should have been passed to an independent jurist, according to Ruckelshaus’s general counsel, John Quarles, but Ruckelshaus decided to rule on it himself. Not surprisingly, he upheld his own ban “on the grounds that ‘DDT poses a carcinogenic risk’ to humans.” (In 1994, he was to deny that that was the basis for the ban.) He had banned DDT though he had not attended a day of the 80-day hearing nor read a page of the transcript (as he told theSanta Ana Register, July 23, 1972).
http://spectator.org/48925_ddt-fraud-and-tragedy/

African and Asian nations dared not flout the USA and the UN Environment Program, which followed our lead). And that's what happened, and remained so for over three decades. Over those next decades, the best estimates were that malaria (which WE eradicated here and in Europe thanks in large measure to DDT) took the lives of over one-million each year, mainly infants and toddlers and pregnant women.
http://www.science20.com/tip_of_the_spear/blog/an_award_for_william_ruckelshaus_the_man_who_banned_ddt_say_its_not_so-160559
The insect no doubt will repeat his baseless slogan:"never happened.No one takes any notice of you, Bugsy.

Yeah, that ruling you talk about was USA specific. Noone else followed suit. So unless those millions of deaths from malaria were from the USA, it didn't happen.

DDT has been available for public health use in nearly all countries ever since. Where DDT was reduced in use, it was generally replaced with alternative insecticides and other control, measures.

When it was banned for agricultural use, that was a boon for public health, as this reduced selection pressure for resistance.

You guys really need to get better sources than opinion pieces with no data.

There was no 'holocaust' of deaths due to banning of DDT, that's just made up.

It didn't happen Leo.

Bugsy says” It didn't happen Leo.”“”
What, you reading the final paragraph of my post?
Of course not. Knowing what I said might limit your reply to what happened. You just deny that.
“African and Asian nations dared not flout the USA and the UN Environment Program, which followed our lead). And that's what happened, and remained so for over three decades. Over those next decades, the best estimates were that malaria (which WE eradicated here and in Europe thanks in large measure to DDT) took the lives of over one-million each year, mainly infants and toddlers and pregnant women.”
You give automatic slogans as replies. Quick, but, of course, thoughtless and wrong. You cannot operate any other way, can you, bugsy?
Quick, and alwys wrong.
At least you do not have the bother of sources. You just make it up.. Always wrong, but a lot easier than chasing facts.You just deny them,say "it did not happen", and make up some that suit you, don’t you, Bugsy?

mhaze

Your comprehension or logic are going astray.

You say:

" He thinks DDT isn't safe because fossil fuel emissions aren't safe."

Please show where I made that connection.

Any other person would recognise they are separate issues.

In relation to water vapour, you stated:

" Is ant aware that water vapour levels have been declining recently? "

My response was to show clearly that is not the case with examples.

You then went on to say:

"Even more idiotic is the notion that water vapour levels can't be declining because there are floods as though floods are a new phenomena. "

What a trite comment; naturally floods have always happened

Once in 500 year floods are not usual; mhaze, there were 8 in a bit over a year in the US alone.
Billions of dollars in costs created, $1.5 billion estimated for the Louisianna floods alone.

Regardless of what you say about Exxon; they're being investigated for criminal behaviour for providing mutually exclusive information to financial markets, now by a Federal Agency which had not been the case 10 months ago.

Of course I read the cut-and-paste paragraph that you appropriated from that opinion piece Leo.

It's wrong of course, as with so much that is written about DDT and it's apparent 'banning'.

Use of slogans? But that's all you ever understand and use yourself Leo.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Leo.

By the way, if you say something DID happen, provide some data, not copypasta from opinion pieces or back-of-the-envelope calculations based on false premises.

DDT is a touchy subject for the environmental movement and its supporters. A chemical with little to no detrimental affects on humans and most other species but deadly to the creature that carries the disease which killed more humans over the ages than any other, was falsely vilified and withdrawn from use. That the decision(s) to pay homage to the false science against DDT cost innumerable lives and vastly greater suffering, is clear. That the environmentalists were up to their neck in encouraging (sometimes through economic blackmail) governments to make these monumentally bad decisions is undeniable.

So the greens and their followers needed to find a way to assuage their part in this carnage. Over the years there's been quite an array of arguments mounted to square the circle, from trying to prop up the faulty science to blaming governments for decisions they (the greens) supported and encouraged. One of the arguments in the arsenal is to play semantic games around the word 'banned'. Oh no, they say, DDT was never banned. So anyone who suggests that its use was curtailed by it being banned gets demands that they prove it was banned and, since they can't prove it in a legalistic sense, their arguments are dismissed in toto.

That's why I'm careful to never say that DDT was banned worldwide since the debate immediately gets sidetracked into petty arguments of semantics and legalisms.

Comically however, bugsy, being used, obviously, to mounting these semantic arguments, ignores the fact that I didn't say there was a worldwide ban, assumes I think it anyway and then tells me how foolish it is to think something that he's decided I must think.

/cont

/cont

DDT was a boon to mankind. It saved enormous numbers of lives by wiping out the lice problems for soldiers in WW2, and by eradicating malaria in most first world nations. But once the problem of malaria was no longer an issue for the first world, suddenly it was decided that it was too dangerous for others to use. Eagle eggs were much more important than brown babies.

There is some evidence that DDT is particularly effective against the creatures that transmit Zika. If Zika takes off in a big way in the USA and other first world countries and if its found that DDT is the best defence, just watch how quickly the safety of white babies trumps eagle eggs.

Wow, how long did it take to write that piece of emotional garbage mhaze?
Still no data I see, how disappointing.

Not only was DDT not generally banned for public health use, no semantics needed, it has been in various public health programs worldwide for many years. When it hasn’t been used, alternative effective pesticides, such as synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates have been used to replace it. In many cases replacement was due to a reduction in DDT effectiveness due to the evolution of resistance in target species. DDT’s only claim to fame is that is a bit cheaper, as it is more residual that the others, another reason why resistance can build up faster. Countries like the USA can afford more expensive measures for mosquito control.

The statement you make about “little to no detrimental affects on humans and most other species”, is hyperbolic and unsupported, like many of your statements. DDT is an insecticide and affects a lot of arthropod species, and since it is highly persistent in the environment, builds up in the food chain. It is also highly toxic to fish and other aquatic species.

There have been many cases where chemicals, such as pesticides, CFCs, lead in petrol etc. have been exceptionally useful and described as a 'boon' to humanity. However overuse, combined with accumulating detrimental effects and clear alternatives, have seen that that 'boon' subject to diminishing returns that reduce that chemicals' benefit over time. They are replaced by other chemicals that also work.

There was no 'holocaust'. That didn't happen.

You really should look up some of this stuff, rather than regurgitating emotive opinion pieces with no basis in fact.

mhaze

The original estimation of costs for the Louisianna floods had been $1.5 billion; a closer review has significantly upped the costs. Investigations suggest the cost will be $8.7 billion.

The other 7 floods mentioned earlier were also extremely costly being in the once in 500 year statistical range. Some time ago I wrote about how in areas during the South Carolina floods there were spots where flood waters were higher than the flood marker poles.

The Mississippi/Misouri flood had been completely out of season and was suggested as the second biggest flood recorded. Out of season meaning normally they received snow during the particular time of year, not rain. Rain not snow, has something to do with temperature.

Your previous comment:

"Even more idiotic is the notion that water vapour levels can't be declining because there are floods as though floods are a new phenomena. "

http://klfy.com/2016/09/09/led-estimates-august-flooding-caused-8-7b-in-damages-to-louisiana/

First sentences from reference:

"Louisiana Economic Development estimates the August 2016 Louisiana Flood caused $8.7 billion in damage to Louisiana residential and commercial properties, with damage to businesses in the state exceeding $2 billion. Those figures do not include damage to the state’s public infrastructure."

Note the costs do not take into account the state's public infrastructure.

The referenced Insurance Journal article in relation to the summer of 2016 adds credence to previous comments; extreme weather is deadly, and creates huge costs.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/09/23/427368.htm

Quote:

Flooding in China’s Yangtze Basin from May through August killed at least 475 people and caused $28 billion in losses.
A drought in India that started earlier in the year and stretched through June caused about $5 billion in damage.
Flooding in West Virginia and the mid-Atlantic in June killed 23 people and damaged more than 5,500 buildings.
Typhoon Nepartak hit the Phillipines, Taiwan and China in July, killing 111 people and causing at least $1.5 billion in damage.
Flooding in northeast China in July killed 289 people and caused about $5 billion in damage.
Temperatures reached 129 degrees (54 degrees Celsius) in Kuwait and Iraq in July.
Flooding in Louisiana in August killed 13 people and caused around $15 billion in damage.
Flooding in Sudan and South Sudan in July and August killed 129 people and damaged more than 41,000 buildings.
A long heat wave coupled with high humidity afflicted the U.S. South and East. Savannah, Georgia, had 69 straight days when the temperature hit 90 or higher.
Typhoon Lionrock hit Japan, China and Korea in August and killed 77 people while damaging more than 20,000 buildings.
Spain set a record for the hottest September temperature recorded in Europe, with marks of 114 and 115 degrees.
Localities in the United States broke nearly 15,000 daily records for hot nighttime minimum temperatures from May into September.

You are always remarking on the Arctic ice flea, without any current knowledge of the topic.
Here is an update:
”since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate.
Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/
Were you lying again, flea, or just ignorant? Also, you have not been able to supply one instance of what you termed my “constant comment”, so you were certainly lying there, weren’t you, flea?.
In your usual pig ignorant manner you will not reply, so we will take that as an admission of what I have put to you. I cannot be fairer than that. You have the opportunity to reply if you consider that you are not lying.

Leo

Your comment made me laugh in relation to sea ice, there is variation from day to day in sea ice extent. What sea ice extent does not take into account is thickness and volume.
The official PIOMASS figures for volume have not come in yet; but, the provisional volume for 2016 is 4,400 km3 ( rounded up ), in 1979 the volume had been 16,700km3. The average ice thickness for 2016 provisionally is fractionally over one metre.

Last winter the Barents Sea had no sea ice. Sea ice extent is measured on a daily basis, what your comment amounts to is: because it is cold today the climate is cooling; or alternatively, because it is warm today the Earth is warming. There can be a change up or down, of 100,000 km2 from one day to the next, the reason why maximum and minimum sea ice extent are the meaningful numbers.
Last winter the sea ice extent was the lowest maximum extent ever recorded; the minimum extent was the second lowest ever recorded in 2016. If the maximum and minimum sea ice extent values are computed together; then, 2016 displayed the lowest sea ice extent ever recorded.

Not long ago (2016) a British yatch completed both routes of the fabled North West passage.

Trend lines for volume, area, and extent of sea ice have been consistently been going down.

Back to volume of sea ice, in 1979 PIOMASS found the volume to be 16,700 km3, in 2015 the volume had been 5,700 km3. Much of the stabilising multi year sea ice has been lost over the years.
Since 1979 about 12,000 km3 of sea ice has been lost.

Leo

A quote from your reference:

"Bringing some sanity to the Climate Change debate." Paul Homewood

Sanity has gone out the window.

The comments are absolute twaddle; no scientist, whether a climate contrarian or climate scientist would write such rubbish as you quoted.

The maximum sea ice extent is recorded sometime in April each year and the minimum in September. We have about a year to wait to get new results for the minimum sea ice extent. It is a little over a fortnight since the minimum sea ice extent for 2016 was established.