Where is the consensus in denier land?

Roberts suggests a conspiracy via the United Nations. He also does not understand the laws of thermodynamics per Professor Roger Jones.
The IPCC ( set up by UN) is attacked by those denying climate change; but then, sentences from the IPCC are cherry picked by deniers to back their arguments.
There have been cases where research authors have had to make statements after their research has been published to say the research has been completely misrepresented by denier journalists and groups.
We get some deniers saying the Earth is cooling; while others are saying that the sun is warming Earth more than usual.
Deniers argue there is a conspiracy in relation to the how temperature from weather stations is tampered with. They believe satellite measure of inferred temperature is more accurate. But, there is much modelling involved in providing temperature from satellites which needs updating due to fluctuations in satellite flights. Satellite temperature is measured in slabs, so cannot be compared to weather station temperature.
Some deniers say that CO2 has some impact on the climate; others are saying categorically that is not the case. Denier Agencies have been set up and paid for by fossil fuel companies; the Taxation Department in the US indicates ExxonMobil has paid almost $31 million to Denier Agencies.

Renewable energy is now becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, it is now a matter of how quickly they will phase out (per Dr J Romm).

So we have denier arguments with no consistency; arguing that peak Agencies such as NASA, CSIRO,NOAA,BoM et al along with thousands of climate scientists are wrong; yet, they hold consistent views. Climate science goes back almost two centuries.

Deniers present mutually exclusive points of view; Malcolm Roberts doesn’t even get the Physics right (Laws of Thermodynamics).

Hi ant! :-)

We must be due for another missive from Marohasy or Nicol or maybe even the 3rd Musketeer John Abbot sometime soon. :-)

In the meantime:

Where is Abbot and Marohasy's promised 'weather prediction' methodology - claimed to be superior to the BOM/MetOffice?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/predicting-annual-temperatures-a-year-ahead/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/what-is-new-in-european-climate-research/

-

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once by Graham Readfearn

New research claims psychological traits could help explain why climate science deniers often make contradictory arguments.

Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.

Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?

A new research paper published in the journal Synthese with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/sep/23/how-climate-science-deniers-can-accept-so-many-impossible-things-all-at-once

Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier - The One Nation senator dismisses the conventional scientific view of climate change. Here are the holes in his most commonly deployed arguments.

"Between 1998 and 2013, the observed temperatures were towards the lower end of the models’ predictions. That is not surprising, and it doesn’t mean the models aren’t working – the temperature rise has still been within the expected range.

But a paper last year showed the difference between prediction and observation has been exaggerated, since while models are all about surface air temperatures, the observations they were compared with have traditionally been a combination of air temperatures over land and sea surface temperatures, which are warming more slowly than the air above the seas."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/debunking-malcolm-roberts-the-case-against-a-climate-science-denier

US Election: Stephen Hawking and hundreds of scientists blast Trump's stance on climate
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/us-election-scientists-blast-trumps-stance-climate-change/7867072
and
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/21/375-top-scientists-warn-of-real-serious-immediate-climate-threat

and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/why-correlations-of-co2-and-temperature-over-ice-age-cycles-dont-define-climate-sensitivity/
-

@ Siliggy, Sunday, 25 September 2016 7:04:52 AM

Siliggy,

I have seen evidence of a volcanic explosion pushing no doubt nutrient loaded soil out underwater into ocean coast waters. There is also film of underwater volcanic vent activity indicating elevated nutrient levels.

The surface warmth and nutrient fed algae I have been tracking is however linked to known nutrient point sources.

Both heat and nutrient-bonded fresh water tend toward the surface.
Nutrient becomes bonded to the fresh water in our bodies and within sewage collection and 'treatment' systems.

Unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient loads are being dumped into the ocean ecosystem and there must be reaction to that action.

From my point of view the SST - AGW anomaly charts actually show currents flowing from known nutrient point sources and then out into the wider ocean and/or into gulf type relatively current free areas.
In other words the SST anomaly in AGW science is no anomaly in nutrient-linked water current movement.

The AGW - SST anomaly is spread worldwide and if the source was volcanic I would expect the ocean would be extremely hot, in comparison say, to a coffee machine starting to really heat milk.

For many years I have thought direct radiation on algae and other solid suspended matter in water is the cause of temporary residual heat, and that it takes just a few hours for that heat to dissipate, and that heat transfer would not occur if that suspended matter was not there.

Now however I understand algae is being harnessed to help warm the BIQ building in Germany and that seems like obvious evidence of heat in algae.
Plus there is surely change in albedo linked to clear water that has become green, and green water now a darker and/or muddy green.

f.y.i. See albedo involving algae and ice;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622101943.htm

J F Aus says:
"Now however I understand algae is being harnessed to help warm the BIQ building in Germany and that seems like "
Am curious about the type of Algae. Any links? What do they feed it? Is it in sunlight or dark?

Climate subsidy industries are in the panic stages before being voted completely out. A rival cause of climate change threatens cashflow. The crying wolf crimes of the old climate scare mean it will be ignored real or not.
"Hyperactive magnetic field may have led to one of Earth’s major extinctions"
"This weakened shielding would have allowed more energetic particles into the upper atmosphere, which would have begun to break down the ozone layer that protects Earth from harmful UV radiation, Meert says. Twenty to 40% of ozone coverage might have been lost—in turn, doubling the amount of UV radiation that reached Earth’s surface, the team reports in a paper in press in Gondwana Research.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/hyperactive-magnetic-field-may-have-led-one-earth-s-major-extinctions

Just who is playing it down already.
"However, a group of researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego and MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, led by Huapei Wang, an MIT postdoc, have studied Earth’s average, stable field intensity over the last 5 million years and found that the current magnetic field intensity is still twice the long-term average. This has led them to infer that a geomagnetic pole shift event is not in the offing in the near future and could potentially be thousands of years away."
"Additionally, contact with such high levels of solar radiation could significantly increase the incidence of cancer worldwide and it could actually mutate the genome of every living thing on our planet."
https://watchers.news/2015/11/24/scientists-allay-fears-of-geomagnetic-pole-shift-in-the-near-future/

"A new study, however, shows that the final stage - a sudden 180-degree flip - can happen within a human lifetime."
http://watchers.news/2014/10/15/earths-magnetic-field-can-flip-in-less-than-100-years-study/

"Besides giving evidence for a geomagnetic field reversal 41,000 years ago, the geoscientists from Potsdam discovered numerous abrupt climate changes during the last ice age in the analysed cores from the Black Sea, as it was already known from the Greenland ice cores."
https://watchers.news/2012/10/19/earths-geomagnetic-reversal-happened-41000-years-ago-new-study-claims/

@ Siliggy, Monday, 26 September 2016 7:39:59 AM

Siliggy,

Re algae and the BIQ building:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works