You've outlined a list of real possibilities Don, some undoubtedly created in the manifestly moribund minds of vexatious mischief makers?

Possibly that crowd who know you can be zapped with fatality causing microwaves, when the oven is switched off, but still plugged in?

[Snakes alive, don't open that door for God's sake! Buzz whir, thank you Sir]

However one of the very real possibilities you seemed to have overlooked, and so basic that even my first born Grandchild gets it! And overlooked by a former university chancellor!?

What are we to put that down to Don? A very severe case of Sargent Schultz syndrome, compounded by an unusually long bout of mind crippling intellectual constipation? Or the dog ate my textbook?

One doesn't enter a warming phase replete with record breaking heat waves and retreating polar and glacial ice, during a cyclical waning phase of the sun, and since the mid seventies. (NASA) But rather, a period of cooling, plus advancing polar and glacial ice! Just not the very opposite!

All one can say is, thank heavens the millennials can vote, with their feet, pocket books and at the ballot box!

Nothing will be done of moment or worth, with the current lot in charge of the bedlam?
Alan B.

I wonder how much longer it is going to take for those with insufficient math to know global warming is a scam, to realise it is simply the new Y2K scam all over again?

The original presentation of the Wallace -Wells article received much criticism. The article was republished with annotated notes referencing science research and interviews with scientists.

Here is the annotated version of the Wallace-Wells article:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html

An article that was written in relation to the Wallace-Wells account:

“We aren’t doomed by climate change. Right now we are choosing to be doomed.” Joe Romm clearly argues that it is a business as usual approach that will ultimately lead to horrendous impacts. Joe Romm is a Physicist who regularly writes about climate science.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-80d28affef2e

The situation in relation to climate change have been getting more worrying over the last years.
For example, the first pingos that exploded in Siberia were identified a couple of years prior to the Trump disaster. There had been reports about more happening since. Now there have been 7,000 mounds/pingos discovered.

The cryosphere had not been well covered in the last IPCC Report and there has been much research since.

Research in relation to the Mackenzie Delta has also not been happy:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05783-2

On a yearly basis the volume of sea ice of the Arctic is measured the trend line is something to be concerned about.

Climate change is supported by hard science, Physics and Chemistry as shown by:

http://youtu.be/H4YSwajvFAY

The Trump White House team comprises of people who are climate change deniers; they are ideologically driven, the only arguments they use about climate change have been debunked several times.

Dear Hasbeen,

Very droll my dear chap.

Increase in global CO2 means an increase in global temperature. Pretty basic stuff. Let me know where you might be struggling and I will see if I can assist.

Hi SteeleRedux

If Hasbeen watches the shortfilm clip I referred, it shows several scientists talking about greenhouse gases. Scientists include Eric Rignot and Lonnie Thompson. Professor Thompson was provided as a skeptical scientist some time ago by a denier correspondent on this site!

Without greenhouse gases none of us would be alive. The CO2 derived from fossil fuels has been developed as sequested carbon over millions of years through layers of vegetation breaking down in swamps, and then being compacted. We have been using fossil fuels over a short period in comparison to the millions of years that fossil fuels have been created.
We are saturating the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases when we use fossil fuels. The origin of CO2 can be identified by its isotopes.

Imagine if these alarmist were held to account for their irrational faith predictions. They would either be in the luny bin or prison.

So runner you clearly do not believe in Physics and Chemistry.

Your comment is meaningless unless you can provide evidence to support your claim.
"Faith" is a word associated with religion; it does not belong to science. Experiments can be conducted showing how CO2 traps and retains warmth. Those experiments can be conducted in a High School Science Lab.

Having an opinion or guess, is just the first stage of scientific method, the next stage is to study as much literature as possible; then, a hypothesis is formed, the hypothesis is then tested. When a hypothesis has been shown to hold through experimentation, then it can be replicated continually. Experiments showing how CO2 can trap and retain heat has gone through this process and can continually be verified.

runner, please debunk the film clip referred above, and my comments on how fossil fuels were formed.

Without greenhouse gases the Earth would virtually be an icy orb.

Alan B wrote:

" ...during a cyclical waning phase of the sun, and since the mid seventies. (NASA) ..."

What you say is factually incorrect (quelle surprise!).

While the very most recent cyclic phases have been unusually 'quiet', those in the 70's and 80's were among the highest recorded.

As an aside, might I say that there are few traits less attractive than arrogance born of ignorance. One of those few less attractive traits is when the ignorant arrogance parlays into self-righteous attacks on those who are neither arrogant or ignorant - as you regularly to with the author (and others).

____________________________________________________________

If you think the shrieks of outrage from the AGW industry were hysterical (in both senses) following the entirely laudable withdrawal from the Paris 'agreement', just wait until you see the tantrums if the so-called 'HONEST' act gets through congress, as now seems likely.

Basically it requires that the EPA only act on scientific advice and evidence once that evidence has been shown to be correct. A reverse precautionary principle if you will.

When the alarmists work out that they'll have to prove their claims BEFORE governmental action will be taken, the tantrums and screaming will be such as to make the tantrums of a 5 yr old denied an ice-cream seem rational.

Thanks, Don, for the update on climate fraud activities, and Judith Curry’s sensible, honest commentary..
The lying, black, racist dunce is fortunately no longer able to give presidential backing to climate fraud.
Trump has lived up to his promise to oppose it.
We have the usual fraud backers on this thread promoting climate fraud, but they are now well known for their dishonesty, so have no effect.
Reflux disappeared when asked the source of the lies he posted about Robert Carter, as he always does when he corners himself with his own dishonesty.
Did you fabricate the lies Reflux, or do you have a source that you are able to quote?
True to form, Reflux will demonstrate his ill bred incivility by again neglecting to answer a reasonable question.

Leo

You are always quite amusing with your nasty comments; haven't laughed so much for ages since seeing your last entry.

Thank you for directing any readers towards a view that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

ant

we are not talking a about a few school lab tests here. We are talking about frauds who have consistently been caught out with totally dud predictions, the renewable charlatans who continue to defraud the tax payer and a total lack of any real science to back their idiotic claims. I am surpised you believe in physics and chemistry as you would realise that no scientist is smart enough to forecast future weather patterns or events. Idiotic predictions have nothing to do with physics or chemistry. They have hoplessly failed over the last 5 or 6 decades and yet they still have huge numbers that hold to the faith. Any scientist interested in truth must be highly embarassed by what is called climate 'science'. Now they tell us that the heat is hidden in the ocean. How convenient! In 100 years we will laugh like we do now with the scientist who for years believed they could count the stars.

runner

My point was that the foundation of climate science in relation to greenhouse gases is sound, the science being built up over almost two centuries and vindicated by science experiments. It is a point deniers are not able to displace. You have not been able to displace the corner stone of climate change. Making predictions about future climate is a completely different area to the one I wrote about.

In relation to your comments:

Of interest is that a couple of scientists employed by Exxon Mobil were asked a couple of decades ago to predict when it would be possible to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. The answer was about now. ExxonMobil had been negotiating with Russian company about drilling for oil at the time that sanctions were placed against Russia. Predictions were useful for Exxon Mobil

ExxonMobil have just been fined 2 million dollars as a result of acting against the sanctions.

The trend line in relation to ice volume in the Arctic has consistently gone down, it is possible to predict with a business as usual process that ultimately there will be a period when the Arctic is ice free. The record as far as least sea ice was created in 2012, the thickness of sea ice is about a metre less now than in 2012 at the same time.
Once the albedo effect has been lost, climate will be impacted.

But, from the denier point of view having some idea of risk factors are not important.

runner

In relation to oceans you stated …” Now they tell us that the heat is hidden in the ocean.”

How do you explain:

coral bleaching hitting reefs around the planet
“blob” off West Coast US for a couple of years prior to last years El Nino
Chilean fishing industry stuffed in 2017 through Ocean warmth
Marine creatures moving their habitats to areas which had been too cold for their existence
Sea currents warming … e.g. measured off coast of Tasmani

What's to say the planet doesn't have its own cycles,
A thousand years is like a moment in time for the planet.

Maybe it does cool and warm, maybe the cycles change at a set universal time,
like every 50,000 years or something.

I doubt mankind could stop climate change even if if it was happening.

You are in more imminent danger of being killed in the non stop wars across the planet.

The left can't admit that, because of their communistic, ideological ideas of globalism.
which they still can't admit, will cause civil wars in their own countries, so they latch on to something they think they can blame their traditional enemies the capitalists for,
the end of the world by climate change.

No it will be the end of them when they find out, the big tribes they let into Western countries and Europe regard them as the capitalist enemy as well and will kill them along with all the other Europeans. Better to believe in the illusionary idea of global warming.

CHERFUL

Earth does have natural cycles, climate scientists acknowledge those.

Climate science had begun its existence before communists or globalism had developed … Fourier in 1820s, Foote 1850s, Tyndall later 1850s, and Arrenhaus beginning of 20th century.
There was even a short newspaper article in a New Zealand paper that stated coal was harmful at the beginning of the 20th Century (1912).

It is very clear you write from an ideological point of view; there is a close association between fake news and ideology.

The history of climate change science existing long before communism can be verified.
That greenhouse gases can pick up warmth and retain it was known before communism came into effect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4584444/A-century-old-newspaper-predicted-global-warming-1912.html

There is a photo of a sailor at the bottom of the reference; Sir David Hempleman-Adams, who sailed an aluminium yacht via both routes of the fabled North West passage of the Arctic Ocean last year in one season. He was Knighted for his exploits. Last year the ice was so thin that two ice breakers were able to travel all the way to the North Pole. Yet, we get nonsense from denier sites that the Arctic sea ice is regenerating.

CHERFUL, you argue that we experience natural variation; where does natural variation fit in with the Barnes ice sheet of Baffin Island? It must have missed your comments about 50,000 year cycles; I suppose you mean Milankovitch cycles which are thought to occur every 60,000 years.

ant

How do you explain:

the constant lies that the UN, media and warmist have been speaking about the Great Barrier Reef for the last 50 years. It is actually in very ggod shape.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/03/divers-say-less-than-5-of-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-not-half-001562671.html

Dear Leo Lane,

How's it going old cock? Been a while.

It appears your “ill bred incivility” (lying, black, racist dunce) is keeping you going.

And you are still bleating on about Carter. From memory I compared his record to Hansen's and you got your frilly knickers in a knot.

You do realise you can't keep coming back until you get the answer you want? But since it has been a while I'm happy for you to lay out the grounds of your complaint and I will attend to them forthwith.

runner

I'm more inclined to believe scientists rather than journalists writing from the US, fake news comes to mind.

Charlie Vernon says things as he sees them, he calls a spade a spade, worth a read.
He is virtually the father of coral science in Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/charlie-veron-the-dire-environmental-prognosis-we-cannot-ignore-20170711-gx8tqr.html

' I'm more inclined to believe scientists rather than journalists writing from the US, fake news comes to mind.'

ant

I am more inclined to believe people who have been diving at the GBR for decades than fake news by fake scientist who either hold to a blind faith or are on the tax funded gravy train. The reef was dead 30 years ago according to previous scientist.

Any support of the climate fraud stems from ignorance or dishonesty.
Reflux has shown that in his case it arises from his inherent dishonesty.
Robert Carter was a leading climate scientist up to his death, and he completely demolished the climate fraud advanced by the front organization of the United Nations, the IPCC, in its scurrilous attempt to demonise CO2, and human emissions.
As Carter commented:” the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change
Fraud supporters like Reflux, had no science to counter Carter’s flawless presentation, so attacked him personally with blatant lies.

This is a copy of my post, after Reflux disappeared, because he had cornered himself with his dishonesty, and would not answer my straightforward question.
Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handling a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 6:02:47 PM

Leo

"Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and a world renowned authority on climate change, ...."

And ... "Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change."

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016

Suggesting ... "renowned" and "leading" are appeals to authority from an odious Agency.
Heartlands was arguing that smoking was safe long after the science had shown that not to be the case. They are as reliable with their views on climate change. Appeals to authority are logically fallacious arguments.

Science keeps moving on with new data being found and assessed.

The IPCC draws together science that has been published in reputable peer reviewed journals, and then formulated into a Report. IPCC participants hold all sorts of political views, some being quite conservative others more radical. Reports were put together through a process of consensus; so, a conservative (not political) Reports emanates from such a process. Richard Lindzen has been a participant with the IPCC, he being skepitical of climate science. Lindzen has in the past been a scientist deniers referenced in the past, for example.

We have crossed swords in the past in relation to an article you referenced to the Arctic. Last year for a few days sea extent rose very quickly; the reference you gave stated that scientists were wrong and the Arctic sea ice extent was recovering; but, the increase slowed right down and went in the opposite direction. Currently, sea ice extent sits at about second or third lowest recorded, as I stated at the time there can be changes up and down on a daily basis by thousands of square kilometres.

Yet, you say any body who supports climate change support fraud. The reference you provided was completely wrong, it was later also published by WUWT. It could be construed as telling lies, I prefer to suggest that the article emanated from ignorance, as I know nothing about the author's motivations.

continued

continued:

The point being, Bob Carter wrote to the Quadrant in 2009, much has happened since. Tens of thousands of science research articles would have been published since in peer reviewed journals. (Powell et al). Articles provided by deniers are often factually wrong or have been cherry picked, as indicated by the nonsensical article published on the Watt's site about sea ice extent in 2016. Yet, climate scientists are fraudsters, I showed last year how you were wrong, what does that make you?

Bob Carter, would not have known about the methane pingo explosions or the decline in permafrost in Siberia, Northern Canada and Alaska when writing his article. They are factors showing climate change experienced over a huge geographical area.

Dear Leo Lane,

Forgive me because I had indeed forgotten how slowly and clearly you required things to be spelled out to you.

When I said;

“I'm happy for you to lay out the grounds of your complaint and I will attend to them forthwith.” I was hoping you had a fresh argument but here you are yet again touting Carter as a climate scientist.

This is something the even the Heartland Institute refuses to claim of him, nor does his Wikipedia page, nor (at least from a cursory look) did he himself.

Once again you are propagating a lie, a fraud, and it is more dishonesty from a discredited person. Time to give it a rest mate.

Reflux says:” something the even the Heartland Institute refuses to claim of him,”
When did they refuse, Reflux, and who requested them?
When you ignore the question, Reflux, it will not be merely another instance of your refusal to act like a decent reasonable human being, but an indication that you have lied yet again about the leading climate scientist, Robert Carter.

cont

cont
To remind you of Carter’s demolition of the failed climate fraud:
” 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.
In other words, both 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. Hypothesis fails.
4. The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0̊C/century.
In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
5. The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.
Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

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/

Leo

Temperature:

Satellite inferred temperature has continually had to be tweaked through using computers as satellite orbits can change, and instruments decay. There are variations in the temperatures inferred from one satellite to another. Christy and Spencer have had to alter the way they calculate temperature from satellites a number of times. As they tweak their computer programs the temperature measures go up.

A number of scientist explain the situation on short film clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX7aWsxe9yw

Quote:

"To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet. "

From:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

Null Hypothesis:

"The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate.
Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

In your world Leo, ice clearly expands through the application of warmth; in response to your claim that temperatures are not increasing.

More irrelevant garbage from the flea, whose lack of understanding of science disables him from making any relevant contribution.
Carter showed that the assertions of the IPCC, on human contribution to global warming, completely fail.
The flea wastes our time with a reference to Wikipedia bearing no relevance to Carter’s demolition of the IPCC assertions.
The flea agrees that he is an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, don’t you, flea? So what else can we expect?
Until you are able to refer us to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, as you have failed to do, you have no starting point, and whatever you post is irrelevant.
Why not buy a dictionary, flea, and start to learn English? Without it you completely lack comprehension

Leo
It wasn't a wikipedia reference ... and your the one that accuses lack of comprehension.
You really are funny!
In the context of where science is at; the IPCC is old news, Carter even older news. Powell et al assessed 24,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals in 2013 and 2014.

Trying to verbalise me is hardly a constructive comment ... "The flea agrees that he is an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, don’t you, flea?" Just an inane comment.

You might like some Chemistry, the American Chemical Society has produced a series of quite short articles about greenhouse gases:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases.html

Also:

http://youtu.be/H4YSwajvFAY

I often laugh when recalling your reference about Arctic sea ice extent expanding last year, it provides the perfect example of a denier argument that showed no understanding and was 100% wrong. Being such a perfect example, I have used it elsewhere, thank you for providing the reference.

The flea responds to agree with my accurate description of him, and to report no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Just concede that there is no such science, flea, and that the IPCC remains discredited by Robert Carter’s science.
The flea mentions the Arctic sea ice fraud, so here are some facts on that:
“Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and NSIDC start their sea ice graphs in 1979, in order to make it look like there is a linear decline in sea ice.”
“I combined the DOE and IPCC graphs, to show what government agencies are up to. They start their linear graphs at the century maximum sea ice extent.”
https://realclimatescience.com/government-arctic-sea-ice-fraud/

Arctic sea ice is the flea’s favourite fraud. He continually promotes this dishonesty

Leo

1979 happens to be the year when satellites first began to be used to assess sea ice in the Arctic. No conspiracy in regard to that. A number of studies have shown how sea ice and volume were higher before 1979.

I noticed in your reference there was a clipping from the New York Times of 1958 stating the thickness of sea ice was around 7 feet, no passenger ship, or cargo ship would be able to steam through such thick sea ice.

The article was right in sayng that children of that time could have the opportunity to travel by ship on the Arctic Ocean. A yacht sailed the the two routes of the fabled North West passage last year. An indication in 1958 that the Arctic Ocean sea ice was predicted to break down.

What a rubbish reference Leo.

Leo

Submarine data showing thickness of sea ice per Table 1 of reference provided after melting seasons.

Between 1958 to 1976 for all Regions of the Arctic Ocean the mean sea ice thickness after the melt season was 3.02 metres. The information was published in 2009 in a significant Journal.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039035/full

The reference has a number of citations unlike the reference you gave.

As stated your reference is just rubbish.

The flea’s constant search for liars and fraud-promoters, like Oreskes and Mann, should culminate in the nailing of climate fraud Michael Mann, who has run out of scurrilous ways to avert justice in his laughable Court case against Professor Ball, where he was stupid enough to impose on himself the impossible task of showing that he is not a fraud.The present state of the proceedings is summed up here:
“ Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”
As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/05/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
It would be appropriate if Mann incurred a criminal finding against him for his promotion of the climate fraud, and it would no doubt limit the fraud available for the flea to quote, and inflict on this forum

Mann was also stupid enough to sue Mark Steyn and others for defamation.
The action against Steyn’s co defendants has been struck out, but Steyn has applied to have the action against him hear by the Court.
While waiting for the hearing, he has written volume 1 of his book sbout the disrepute with which Mann is regarded in his profession.
The book has been published, and is available for purchase. The proceeds are assisting Steyn with legal expenses. It is available here if you wish to help a good cause:
https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482417009&sr=1-1&keywords=Steyn+disgrace+to+the+profession&linkCode=sl1&tag=steyn-20&linkId=19e34bc537199fe881f1c2d288a7c5c1

Leo

It is noticeable that you made no comment about my last reference which showed sea ice data going back to 1958 which completely debunked your earlier comments.

There have been several studies published in Journals confirming Dr Mann's hypothesis about the so called "hockey stick".
The matter has been discussed several times in the past.

The Barnes ice sheet of Baffin Island makes a mockery of the claims of deniers about past temperature; it being quite a recent discovery.

Film clip discussing temperature in medieval period:

https://youtu.be/AD16nCsvjqs

How does Dr Mann cherry pick research that he and his colleagues worked on? That is simply a most illogical comment.

What evidence is there of sea level rise in the medieval period?
The volume of water naturally rises through extra warmth; also, melting land ice causes a rise in sea level.

Please provide a reference displaying Dr Ball's graph in a peer reviewed Journal.
Where did Dr Ball obtain his pollen samples, and coral samples etc from to produce his graph?
What evidence has been left of storm surges during the medieval period?
What evidence has been left of rain bombs? Rain bombs are created through a warming atmosphere being able to carry more water vapour; as a result, huge amounts of rain can fall in a very short period causing severe flooding.

Leo, your the person who promoted the idea of a null hypothesis, so they are fair questions.

Leo

I read the Amazon blurb about Steyn's book; as stated previously there is subsequent research that has shown that arguments put out by deniers are wrong.

Quote from Science Advances:

"The climatic mechanisms driving the shift from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) in the North Atlantic region are debated. We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. "

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL072394/abstract

What do you think ("were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. ") means?

From

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

A further study of Baffin Island shows how the Barnes Ice sheet was intact during the medieval period.

It is a bit of a nuisance when the Barnes ice sheet doesn't react as deniers say it should, quote:

"The results provide compelling evidence that the current level of warming is almost unheard of in the past 2.5 million years, according to the authors. Only three times at most in that period has the Barnes Ice Cap been so small, a study of isotopes created by cosmic rays that were trapped in rocks around the Barnes Ice Cap indicated."

http://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/03/20/last-remnant-north-american-ice-sheet-track-vanish

Site it was published, showing more references:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL072394/abstract

The flea has found some liars who vindicate Mann’s fraud. He is good at finding climate liars. Mann does not share such confidence, as he has chosen to be dealt with for contempt of court, rather than produce his shonky paperwork for scrutiny before the Court. That great source of climate fraud, NOAA, has been exposed again for its fraudulent actions:
“the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4oNMJijq3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
This is a sample of the fraudulent nonsense in the article to which the flea has referred us:” "This is the disappearance of a feature from the last glacial age, which would have probably survived without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions," said Adrien Gilbert, a glaciologist”
A scientist making an assertion for which there is no supporting science .
What else would one expect from an ignoramus like the flea, who uses the ridiculous term “denier”, when the fraud promoters, like himself, can refer us to no science to be denied. Again, flea, I ask that you refer us to science which shows a measurable human effect on climate.
Mann’s gratuitous commission of contempt of court will not assist him in dealing with criminal proceedings on his climate fraud

Leo

If you had followed up on the article Rose wrote you would understand that as per usual he got it wrong.
Once again the matter has already been discussed on On Line Opinion.

You don't provide science do you ?

Here is an example of a critique of his nonsense:

Quote in relation to a Rose article:

"This article is a textbook case of cherry picking—it selects only one record, ignores the limitations of the data it comments on, and forms an argument based on only a few months of a much longer record. This is akin to claiming that sea level rise has ended because high tide in one area has ebbed."

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/stunning-new-data-indicates-el-nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-david-rose-daily-mail/

The claims made by Rose and mate Delingpole (same matter) have been analysed and found to be wrong in relation to the matter you raised.

"“I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods."

From:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Deniers keep regurgitating matters that have already been dealt with and found to be wrong.

Dear Leo Lane,

The question my dear fellow is whether or not the now departed gent was a climate scientist as you had claimed? He was not. We have ascertained that you appear to be one of the few who continues to fly this flag even though you have no evidence to sustain it.

It is funny but it doesn't matter how many times you claim the sky is green it seems to remain blue.

Ultimately this leaves you either a pathological liar or an outright loony. I'm at a loss to decide for certain so perhaps we settle on a measure of both.

Leo

Re Baffin Island

Good try in relation to your Gilbert quote, Leo.
Where is the lack of science in ... "In addition to measuring changes in the ice cap’s height, researchers used ice-penetrating radar aboard the aircraft to reveal its hidden, sub-glacial topography."

Previous science provides building blocks for subsequent research:

"We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland"

Those quotes can be found in the references provided and deal with collecting data; that is, science.

As we know Leo, you cannot provide information previously requested:

Please provide a reference displaying Dr Ball's graph in a peer reviewed Journal.
Where did Dr Ball obtain his pollen samples, and coral samples etc from to produce his graph?
What evidence has been left of storm surges during the medieval period?
What evidence has been left of rain bombs? Rain bombs are created through a warming atmosphere being able to carry more water vapour; as a result, huge amounts of rain can fall in a very short period causing severe flooding

No ,Reflux, in your delusional state you have overlooked the fact that the question is whether you fabricated the scurrilous lies you posted about Professor Carter, or had a source for them, which , in your incompetent manner, you neglected to supply. You have been asked a number of times, and in your ill-bred, uncivil way, have ignored this most relevant question.
.The US Senate heardProfessor Carter’s sworn evidence on climate. They apparently did not seek advice from a boofhead who could tell them Carter was not a climate scientist. They apparently only sought the opinion of informed people, who knew that he was.
In an important Court case where Carter’s evidence showed the lies in Gore’s film, the Court relied on Carter’s status as a climate scientist, no doubt relying on sworn evidence when he was qualified as a witness. I wonder why the opposition did not rake up a dishonest boofhead like you to give evidence against his qualification as a witness on climate science. No doubt because your dishonesty stands out like a warning beacon. You would not be believed.

The flea asks another stupid question:”
Please provide a reference displaying Dr Ball's graph in a peer reviewed Journal”
Even an ignoramus like the flea should understand that a graph prepared by Ball for the purposes of the case will be examined and criticised by Mann and his scientific team far more critically than in peer review.Of course it would be impractical to have a graph, prepared during the course of a case, peer reviewed before submission .
Dealing with the flea’s ignorant nonsense is like taking out the garbage

Leo

So what Journal did Ball have his graph published in, you provide a supposition which is not proof. Dr Mann will no doubt examine the graph presented by Ball; but, that is not peer review, it is preparation for a legal case.

Summary:

You have not been able to defend a reference you provided in relation to sea ice extent in 2016 which was subsequently published in WUWT. It was completely nonsensical and at best could be seen to emanate from ignorance.

In commenting about Dr Carter you provide an example of appealing to authority.
Dr Carter and the IPCC are old news, tens of thousands of research papers have been published since (Powell et al).

Taking inferred temperature from satellites involves computer processing ( modelling) to take into account changes in flight path and synchronisation from one satellite’s data to another. Even Christy and Spencer have had to alter their modelling in relation to interpreting satellite data. There is no direct measure of temperature.

In relation to climate science you bring in the notion of a null hypothesis, it produces the responsibility to provide evidence.

You commented on NOAA etc providing data from 1979 as though it was some kind of conspiracy; that was when satellites began to be utilised. A newspaper clip part of the reference you provided did not uphold the comments being made. Data derived from submarines dating back to 1958 showed your reference to be wrong.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist working for a non-government Agency has debunked the Rose article you referred.

Two references in relation to Baffin Island were provided. They showed how quite current research displays how the medieval warming period has been completely overstated by deniers. Greenland is adjacent virtually to Baffin Island and Greenland is seen to prove the medieval warming period was warmer than currently. Baffin Island research shows that to be a nonsense.
The inane response was that it was not science, shown to be wrong.

Dear Leo Lane,

Come on mate time to give it a rest.

Joanne Nova is another who never claimed bob was a climate scientist even in her eulogy of him.

Even one of OLO's most prolific climate sceptics Peter Lang labelled him as a “non-climate scientist”

“Bob Carter did an enormous amount to help save us all from stupidity. He was one offour non-climate scientists who convinced Senator Steve Fielding (the only engineer in Parliament) that the climate scientists’ projections of catastrophic human caused global warming were not based on sound objective, analysis of the relevant evidence and were highly suspect”
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/

Bob Carter was not a climate scientist to anyone except yourself. This mate puts it fairly in the realm of delusional behaviour. For you to keep saying I slandered him by saying he wasn't is really loony stuff.

Put it to bed my friend before you are strapped to one.

Leo

CNBBC confirms matters I have written about in relation to Siberia:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/siberian-craters-big-releases-of-methane-could-pose-broad-problems.html

""The last time we saw a permafrost melting was 130,000 years ago. It's a natural phenomenon because of changes in the earth's orbit," said professor of earth sciences at the University of Oxford, Dr. Gideon Henderson."

And:

""But what is definitely unprecedented is the rate of warming. The warming that happened 130,000 years ago happened over thousands of years … What we see happening now is warming over decades or a century."

We are therefore seeing a much more rapid collapse of the permafrost, Henderson said."

There are objective matters (data) showing that permafrost is thawing, being witnessed in Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska. The development of mounds/pingos, slumping roads, buildings breaking down, lakes developing, shrubs growing in tundra areas, Islands off Siberia eroding, and "drunken trees", being examples of a warming climate. Permafrost does not thaw after a few hot days, there must be significant warmth over an extended period.

Reflux:”Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).
Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals.
Dr. Carter acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and New Zealand parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm, Sweden. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016

Carter refers to himself as a climate scientist, and most would accept his word over yours, as you have clearly demonstrated that you do not tell the truth.
“Science reality. My reference files categorise climate change into more than 100 sub-discipline areas of relevant knowledge. Like most other climate scientists, I possess deep expertise in at most two or three of these sub-disciplines.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2008/11/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control/
You have no basis upon which to address me with familiarity, Reflux. I am not on familiar terms with an ill-bred, fraud promoting purveyor of blatant lies. . You make a bigger fool of yourself by failing to even attempt to refute the basis on which I have shown that you are incorrect in your ridiculous denial that Professor Carter was a world renowned climate scientist. I have backed my assertion with facts. You have no basis for your ridiculous denial, other than ill-bred insults, irrelevant to the question, but demonstrating your ineffectiveness, and inability to conduct yourself in a reasonable, decent manner.

Leo

The New York Times has just released a major report representing the work of thousands of climate scientists.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

It is facile to suggest one scientist's opinions stand up against the report just released, and the thousands of peer reviewed Journal published research since. The IPCC and Carter's comments have been bypassed. A new IPCC Report is in its infancy which will review current published science, and research yet to be properly published.

"The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation and extreme heat events are increasing in most regions of the world and will continue to rise in the future ...." It is given a very high level of confidence, meaning "... strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus." Per reference.

Also,

"Alaska and Arctic surface and air temperatures are rising more than twice as fast as the global average." (Very high confidence).

If you argue against "very high level of confidence", you are a fool. Its not the kind of confidence that can be ascribed to an individual article in Quadrant or a book.

The flea has found another nonsense source of climate fraud, and puts up the nonsense proposition that Professor Carter is the only scientis showing that the fraud is baseless.
The document to which the flea refers, in support of the fraud, is labelled with words to the effect:”Do not cite, copy or distribute”
Another reminder that the flea is an irrelevant, unqualified ignoramus, who cannot refer us to any science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, nor any valid criticism of Professor Carter’s null hypothesis, which demolished the fraudulent IPCC attemptat supporting the climate fraud with its invalid hypothesis.
What a time-wasting clown the flea constantly proves himself to be.

Leo

This reference of yours was completely wrong:
You have not been able to defend a reference you provided in relation to sea ice extent in 2016 which was subsequently published in WUWT. It was completely nonsensical and at best could be seen to emanate from ignorance. Later data completely demolishes your reference.

In commenting about Dr Carter you provide an example of appealing to authority.
Dr Carter and the IPCC are old news, tens of thousands of research papers have been published since (Powell et al).

In relation to climate science you bring in the notion of a null hypothesis, it produces the responsibility to provide evidence.

Two references in relation to Baffin Island were provided. They showed how quite current research displays how the medieval warming period has been completely overstated by deniers. Greenland is adjacent virtually to Baffin Island and Greenland is seen to prove the medieval warming period was warmer than currently. Baffin Island research shows that to be a nonsense.
The inane response was that it was not science, shown to be wrong.

You are not able to come up with any meaningful commentary in relation to the new report created by thousands of scientists referenced above.

Amusingly, you become abusive which is meant to be a meaningful comment; anybody with an ounce of insight can understand you offer nothing.

The latest reference provided was published to by pass Trump and his band of deniers. When a mega report suggests that particular points have a very high level of confidence it takes a fool to suggest otherwise.

A very high level of confidence means: "... strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus."

No answer, flea to the fact that you referred us to a paper marked “not to be cited, copied or distributed” as support for the climate fraud upon which you rely.
Having proved what a fool you are again, you jump back to your laughable, baseless hobby horse again, the Arctic ice disappearance.
Here is an update on that, which puts your attempt to deceive into perspective:
“ when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.”
The article is headed:
“Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
You are always deceptive, and wrong, flea. This is not abuse, flea, as you will falsely assert, but merely a statement of fact.

I have posted Professor Carter’s demolition of the failed IPCC assertion of human caused climate change, several times, but the flea proclaims his ignorance of it, so here it is again. No one has faulted Professor Carter's science, or been able to show any validity in the IPCC’s flawed assertions.
“Carbon Dioxide hypothesis Fails
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.
, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

Reflux, demonstrating his lack of breeding, and his ignorant, uncivil behaviour, still fails to respond to questions about his lies concerning Professor Carter.
Here is a copy of my post in May, requesting his response
” Steele Reflux has raised his delusional head again, using the scurrilous term “denier”.
As I have asked you many times before, Reflux, what is the science being denied?
You have none. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You disappeared from the climate thread after you posted the baseless lie that Robert Carter’s complete demolition of the climate fraud had been shown to be untrue.
You gave no reference to the source of this nonsense, and I asked you to give the source or admit that you had concocted the ridiculous lie yourself.
As is your custom when you corner yourself with your dishonesty, you disappeared down your rodent hole for months.
Now that you have surfaced will you please give the source of your baseless lies about Robert Carter’s work.
He showed that the assertions about CO2 by the fraud promoters completely fail.
As Carter's science is flawless, fraud promoters like Reflux, make baseless personal attacks.
What is your response this time, Reflux?
Disappear down the rat hole again?
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 7 May 2017 2:03:43 PM

Leo

I have never written that the Arctic would be ice free in 2016. Climate scientists generally believe it will take far longer for the Arctic to be ice free. Extent lines for sea ice extent and volume suggest that it will take much longer. Multi year sea ice is being lost as is sea ice thickness. Multi year ice is the back bone of Arctic sea ice.

Remember
"
"Alaska and Arctic surface and air temperatures are rising more than twice as fast as the global average." (Very high confidence). "

Did you read the reference you provided?

Quote:

"Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of "crying wolf" and harming the message of climate change through "dramatic", "incorrect" and "confusing" predictions."

The comment "... an undenial downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years ..." is quite unambiguous, Leo.

There are no doubts about Arctic sea ice being lost. As mentioned previously an English aluminium yacht has sailed both routes of the fabled North West passage in 2016 in the one season. The skipper of the yacht received a knighthood as a result.

Also:

"After 24 days at sea and a journey spanning more than 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles), the Finnish icebreaker MSV Nordica has set a new record for the earliest transit of the fabled Northwest Passage."

From:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/29/the-associated-press-the-latest-icebreaker-sets-record-for-nw-passage-transit.html

Leo

Temperature has been increasing over the last 16 years there is much evidence.

The report referenced in the New York Times States:

" The global, long term and unambiguous warming trend has continued during recent years."
It is a statement having a very high degree of confidence.

Oceans have been warming as shown by coral reefs generally getting knocked by bleaching.

Empirical evidence showing warming, there are numerous other examples.

Dear Leo Lane,

My so called 'slander' of Carter in your eyes was saying he was not a climate scientist.

You are yet again deflecting.

Look this is really simple mate, will you state for the record whether Carter was or wasn't a climate scientist.

Once done we can move on to matters he may have raised.

You will hopefully recognise though that issues raised by a non-climate scientist will naturally carry less weight than those from an actual one. This is why sorting his qualifications out is important.

Let's see which way you go.

Reflux, where did I say that you slandered Professor Carter?
I said” Carter refers to himself as a climate scientist, and most would accept his word over yours, as you have clearly demonstrated that you do not tell the truth.:”
I quoted Carter:” . Like most other climate scientists, I possess deep expertise in at most two or three of these sub-disciplines.”
In your customary pig-ignorant manner, again demonstrating your lack of breeding, you have not replied, but responded with a stupid redundant question as to whether I assert that Robert Carter was a climate scientist. I have repeatedly asserted this, and you have failed to disprove it.
You are obviously dim-witted, but must be aware that I assert that Robert Carter is a climate scientist, and he has stated unequivocally that he is. You have put forward no basis to deny it, other than scurrilous lies of which you have failed to disclose the source.

Leo

Quote:

"A range of key climate and weather indicators show the planet is growing increasingly warm, a trend that shows no signs of slowing down, said the annual State of the Climate Report."

And:

"The report confirmed prior announcements that 2016 was the hottest year since contemporary records began, marking the third year in a row that global records were broken planet-wide. Both land and sea surface temperatures set new highs."

From:

http://phys.org/news/2017-08-planet-highs-pollutants-sea.html

Quote:

"Each year from January to June, hundreds of scientists from around the world crunch the numbers on the previous year's climate, reviewing and cataloging everything from the humidity of the atmosphere, to the number and strength of hurricanes in every part of the ocean, to the size of the Arctic sea ice pack."

From:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-highlights/2016

Quote:

"Increasing temperatures have led to decreasing Arctic sea ice extent and thickness. On March 24, the smallest annual maximum sea ice extent in the 37-year satellite record was observed, tying with 2015 at 5.61 million square miles, 7.2% below the 1981-2010 average. On September 10, Arctic sea ice annual minimum extent tied with 2007 for the second lowest value on record, at 1.60 million square miles, 33 percent smaller than average. Arctic sea ice cover remains relatively young and thin, making it vulnerable to continued extensive melt."

From:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/international-report-confirms-2016-was-third-consecutive-year

Leo, you say you were a lawyer; a Judge would have a great laugh at your expense if you were a lone voice in a Court, arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing from thousands of other scientists.

The flea says:” if you were a lone voice in a Court, arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing from thousands of other scientists”.

If my case was correct, and the 450 in the opposition were wrong, I would win the case. With no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, and, of course, there is none, they would lose.
So your remark is very stupid, flea.
But you did agree that you are an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, didn’t you, flea.

Leo

You stated:

"If my case was correct, and the 450 in the opposition were wrong, I would win the case. "

Your case is completely wrong.

My original statement was ....arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing by thousands of other scientists.

....supported through thousands of other scientists by their references (450 + 1,000s).

Such mega Reports use references to research which has been published in peer reviewed Journals.

Do you have a lack of comprehension, Leo?

The flea says:” Your case is completely wrong”
You are not the judge here, flea, you are just an ignoramus, with no idea of what he is talking about. Your opinion has no valid basis. It is based on ignorance, and means nothing
As I have often pointed out, you are not equipped to take part in discussion on the forum.
Your knowledge of how a legal case works is worse than nothing, as you have formed misconceptions, which form an extension of your abysmal ignorance.
The fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, so the rest of their "science" is, like yourself, irrelevant.
Yes, flea, one of your worst disabilities, arising from your ignorance, is your lack of comprehension.
Even imbeciles are able to grasp the fact thct that the correct answer is not reached by counting the number of supporters. As Einstein pointed out, it only needs one person who is right, to prevail over any number of those who are wrong.

Leo

A "very high confidence level" is a technical term defined in the study previously referred. What do you not understand about "... … strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus.”

https://assets.documentcloud.org

When you try to slander people it is a clear indication you have nothng to offer.

You do produce a lot of laughter though, Leo.

The flea says:” When you try to slander people it is a clear indication you have nothng to offer.”
When have I slandered any-one, flea. My descriptions are truthful and factual. You have been invited on more than one occasion to let us know if you can show them to be otherwise, and I have taken your lack of response to indicate your agreement, as I advised you it would. Are you now saying that you were being deceitful?
I am not surprised that you snigger in embarrassment at the ignorant behaviour of yours which I accurately describe in my posts. How typical of an ignoramus like you to make the baseless assertion of “slander”
You have failed to present any reference to science supporting your baseless claims, and continue to refer us to irrelevant garbage.
You will recall that when the fraudulent IPCC first claimed human caused climate change, it was “high confidence, and would be scientifically proven by the “hot spot” in the troposphere,when scientific research proved it which would be the “signature” for human causation.
Naturally, no hot spot was shown, no signature, and no apology from the lying IPCC for their nonsensical"high confidence".
Who do you think you will dupe with the “high Confidence” garbage, flea? Someone as ignorant as yourself, no doubt.

Leo

You state "... it was “high confidence, and would be scientifically proven by the “hot spot” in the troposphere,when scientific research proved it which would be the “signature” for human causation...."

You don't do much research do you, Leo ... a hot spot has been discovered.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=BFB0B4D0F3D1A6AEC91F96E913CA9142.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Or:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

Or

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

I remember reading about the hot spot a couple of years ago, Leo.

The flea says” a hot spot has been discovered.”
Yes, it has, flea, but that was after many false starts, and it did not, as asserted by the fraud promoter prove human caused warming.

I will quote the fraudulent skeptical Science site, since there is no dissent on the existence of a hotspot. The fraud promoters do not even assert that it proves human causation of warming.
“Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

My post was not about the hotspot, flea, but about how fraud promoters, with no science to back their assertion, make false assertions, and label them “high confidence”
You were not answering my post, flea, but your own ignorant misapprehension of it.
You have referred to no science to support your assertions, and refer us to pseudoscience
Your nonsense really is a disgrace.

Leo

You are the one that brought up the issue of a "hot spot".

A quote from your reference:

"When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming. "

The reference you provided had a film clip which stated that making a fuss about a "hot spot" was just a red herring. To be cryptic, according to your reference it cuts two ways in relation to the hot spot.

A very high level of confidence being "... strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus."

The reference I provided earlier does have a very high level of confidence .... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf
Glaciers, permafrost thawing, exploding pingos, trend lines of sea ice extent and volume in Arctic, weather station data, satellite data, greening tundra, domestic water supplies failing, changes in habitat on land and oceans, oceans warming, crops failing, extreme rainfall constantly being experienced, famine being experienced, heat stroke victims, extreme wildfires, drought ... generally features of temperature

A high level of confidence provides for " Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/ordocumentation limited etc.), medium consensus.

More funny abuse when you have nothing to offer.

I did not raise the “hot spot” flea, as you dishonestly assert. I reported the raising of it by the climate fraud promoters,the IPCC, who wrongly asserted that it would be the “signature” for human caused global warming, which, as is admitted even by fraud promoters, like the contemptible Skeptical Science, it is not. You cannot be so ignorant as to fail to see that.
You continue to dishonestly characterise my accurate description of you and your nonsense as “abuse”, and evade any response, which would inevitably highlight your dishonesty. If there is anything inaccurate in my description of you, please let us know what it is, and give up hiding behind your dishonest assertion of “abuse".

Leo

So you are suggesting that Lindzen and Tol have committed fraud, they have been part of the IPCC process.

A number of other sources also present the same type of arguments as Skeptical Science:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

http://www.realclimate.org/The

Presents ethical issues:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/western-canadas-glaciers-losing-ice-at-near-record-rates

Meanwhile glaciers are melting:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/western-canadas-glaciers-losing-ice-at-near-record-rates

An interesting quote ... "Denial begins to look like psychosis."

Also "... We’re seeing wildfires in Greenland, for heaven’s sake. Famously soggy Seattle has just gone through a record 54 consecutive days (and counting) without rain."

And " ... The assessment makes for particularly gloomy reading in South Florida, where rising waters already plague our ritziest zip codes."

Plus " ... On Wednesday, researchers from the University of Florida published findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that sea levels along the southeast Atlantic coast, south of Cape Hatteras down to South Florida, are rising six times faster than the global averages. So if sea level rise is bad elsewhere, it’s going to be hell in Miami."

From:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article166587642.html

the flea refers us to a liar, who says :” Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,”.
By this he means climate change as fraudulently defined by the fraud promoters’ definition, meaning human caused climate change, so the statement is a base lie, typical of the dishonest material to which the flea refers us. Science is useless to him, as none supports the fraud which he fails in his attempt to promote.
The flea’s liar also refers us back to the nonsense deceptively referred to by the flea as “science”, published by the New York Times and endorsed to the effect, “not to be copied distributed or cited.
This is the flea’s “science”, in a document which states that under no circumstances is it to be treated as science, any more than an ignoramus like the flea should be treated seriously. He has not yet grasped the concept of science and shows every indication that he never will.

Leo

Your first comment relates to what a major Report has stated ... ” Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,”. There were 450 scientists from a number of countries who wrote the paper that my reference referred too. Thousands of published research articles in peer reviewed Journals support the views expressed in the mega Report.

An intelligent person whose mind is not clouded by ideology would want to know what evidence you have that climate science is a fraud. Lindzen and Tol must have been committing fraud when they were taking part in IPCC deliberations.

Rather than negative sophistry where is your empirical evidence? Physics and Chemistry and the Laws of Thermodynamics do not belong in the "science" you peddle, Leo.

If Fourier (1820s), Foote, Tyndall (1850s) and other pioneers of climate science were alive today they would have a huge laugh at your expense.