Whilst Green policies may be extreme, and not worthy of much consideration, the bottom line is that a price cannot be put on this planet.
Our ONLY home.
When it`s gone so are we.
No Environment, no us.

I don't think anyone commenting here is less of a friend to the green and their power hungry hidden agenda than me. But I think on balance the repetitive word hate, is a bit over the top.

Some mines, particularly new coal mines are going to encounter numerous difficulties with getting finance and financial approval and running a gauntlet of impossible due diligence as required by law and most company operational imperatives! Rather than green ideological imperatives?

Yes, the greens through basesless rank stupidity and massively manipulated preferential voting, have welded far more power than they have and that being true, came a cropper losing massive support in their traditional Australian homeland, Tasmania. Where their 7-8% support shrank to the point where they were hard pressed I believe, to win a single seat.

And evidence that you an fool some of the people all of the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people, all of the time.

This anti green rant though spiced with a few facts, is in my view an unbalanced over the top hate speech rant. And sure to send the sympathy vote scurrying into green corners? The objective/intention?
Alan B.

unfortunately our billion dollar funded abc sees it roles to promote the Green religion. Really stems from the hatred of the One true God.

And who or what might he/she/it be runner?

How so runner? And in what context? Please elucidate. There's a good chap.

Name names and identify actual examples, the sums exchanged by whom and to who? if you'd be so kind?

In other words put up or shut up. Or are you just running yet another of your entirely unfounded, unproven anti ABC rants?

Please, prove me wrong with more than your usual fact free BS.

AS Robbie Burns would have said, Facts are chiels tha' dinna whinge.

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Mr Forbes is also rabid right wing director of Stanmore Coal and Climate Change denier.
A prime Environmental Vandal.

runner knows who his is God is, ateday, and you don't believe there is a god, do you? So why to harangue a man for his faith?

Viv

Lock the Gate was set up by farmers to protect prime farm land from exploitative miners. Prime farm land will produce into the long term future. Mines only produce for a relative short period and ruin the land. All farmers involved with Lock the Gate are not sympathetic to the Greens.

Twenty thousand scientists have signed a document outlining the dangerous situation we are reaching in relation to climate change; not all of those scientists are Green, if any.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-scientists-warning-climate-change-global-warming-experts-a8243606.htmlm

It is highly unlikely the Greens can have much influence globally when there are so few of them globally.

To me "sustainable" means being able to produce enough food, water and shelter for everybody; the implication of what you imply is quite extreme.

When you vent your anger generalising from your straw man examples to the universal, you come up with a mess.

There may be Greens against Hydro power; but, what you say doesn't seem to make sense, please provide evidence.

Governments in the past made huge mistakes in privatising energy, now people are paying for those mistakes. With energy prices soaring, it is driving consumers who can afford to place solar panels on their roof to do so. Market forces are operating in relation to people placing panels on their roof.

Please provide evidence for the points you make in your rant.

Good satire, Viv. Although I think a few people might have missed the joke.

What would they do once they achieve a global government? Perhaps hand this planet to the galactic government? I'd like to see their green faces when the galactic government decides to mine iron and nickel from this planet's core...

Bottom line: any group that interferes with the freedom of individuals to live by their own religion and values will face a larger/stronger group that will interfere with their own most cherished values.

'And who or what might he/she/it be runner?'

the One you and every other OLO contributor will bow their knee to. You will face judgement or mercy. For your sake I hope you wake up to yourself.

There is a snip of reality in the post.
The fundamental source of the green philosophy from the Deep Green
generators of policy, is that world government is their ideal.
Now, I suspect that the majority of greenies find that idea to be
the hight of stupidity.
However they like all the other policies.
Some of those policies are impractible, and others are accepted by all.
Such as keeping plastics out of the oceans.

It is horses for courses as they say.
The problem I have is that the general greenie policies are off the planet so to speak.
Their attitude to electricity generation is insane.
It also lacks an understanding of primary school mathematics
to say nothing of electricity.

The hateful and hate filled greens only want one thing, power, absolute power. Just like their predecessor Hitler. Enough hate speech for you Alan B?
You got a cheek whining about hate speech and rants, what about Thorium - ooooh!
Give us a break Al and you have a howdy doody day too! You

Toni

If Viv has written satire, then he needs to try harder!

It does not fit in with what he has written previously ... for example, a carbon tax will stifle economic development.
He suggests CO2 does not drive climate.
Viv, says he is a Geologist, he is not an Atmospheric Physicist. James Anderson, an Atmospheric Physicist, was the man whose research discovered the ozone layer was being damaged; he certainly believes CO2 is a driver in climate change. Experimentation shows how CO2 does pick up radiated warmth. The first experiments were conducted in the 1850s by Eunice Foote.

Science is not political, nothing to do with Greens.

The problem with green policy would be minimised, if the greens abandoned their incongruous involvement with human rights, which has not the slightest bearing on ecology!

The real geniuses commenting here think or try to imply, my robust advocation of thorium and nuclear energy is hate speech? Even as the climate goes crazier by the day!

It's not hate speech but reasoned logical argument, that has put the self serving, fossil fuel advocate and a few of his, brain dead hillbilly mates completely offside!

And no I won't shut THFU.

Please explain why the ice retreats and the coral atolls (canary in the coal mine) are inundated, all while the sun is in waning phase!

WHEN THE VERY OPPOSITE, AS NORMAL CYCLICAL CHANGE, SHOULD BE HAPPENING!

If there is any other credible explanation than man made climate change and caused by CO2 emission, already breaking all previous records and up in formerly uncharted territory! The only real difference in play. So genius, what's the other possible, logical, rational explanation?

Martins hiding on the dark side of the moon aiming long range microwaves at us perhaps?

Speaking of which, heard about a new restaurant opened up on the moon.

They say the food is out of this world and to die for, but the joint has absolutely no atmosphere.

You'll have another nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

Let's just look at anti nuke, anti development, green success story? They locked this and that forest up to save some old trees and a few parrotts, what have you?

Even when logics rites suggested strongly we should keep some selective logging and sustainable sawn timber operation. And thereby halving the trees felled and the number of jobs in the timber industry doubled.

Moreover the logging roads would have double as fire breaks and numerous extra eyes would have been alert to this or that outbreak of fire, which if attacked early enough! Can be completely contained!

But no the greens under Dr Brown, who is never ever wrong, placed bans and restrictions everywhere they could and locked up thousands of hectares that were previously grazed, which incidentally, reduced the fuel load. Were completely silent/missing in action, as a consequence of their brain dead but never ever wrong policies.

A massive wildfire took hold and burned about a million hectares and just about everything in it that couldn't outrun a wildfire moving faster than a steaming express, thundering toward them like a jet taxiing to take off and with equal noise.

Similarly the transition to a tourism lead Tasmanian economy has been so successful that there are now not enough hotel rooms in Hobart. And as a consequence some former rentals have now been conscripted to short stay tourism!

With the end result some of the poorer tenants, single mums and the like now find themselves reduced to living in the dead of a frigid Hobart winter, in a tent in hobart's campgrounds and an unenviable outcome fairly common during the height of the great depression! Or green policy in action!

Never mind, the leadfeather opossum will be saved and as we know from well enunciated green ideology. The birds and the bees, things that crawl or swim are far more important than the pensioner Grans of Hobart or anywhere else for that matter!
Alan B.

Actually uncle Al, it's the policies of the two major parties responsible for homelessness, through unaffordable housing.

It's the lack of interest and refusal to acknowledge the problem by them, which exacerbates the problem of people living on the street.

In 1968, the American Petroleum Institute was made aware of the impact of CO2 on climate.
The Greens did not exist in 1968, hence my view that science is divorced from Green ideology in relation to whats happening with climate.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16

Quote:

"In 1968, Stanford Reseach Institute (SRI) scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins produced a Final Report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) on SRI’s research in the sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous pollutants in the atmosphere."

Also:

"They reserved their starkest warnings to industry leaders for carbon dioxide. Robinson observed that, among the pollutants reviewed, carbon dioxide "is the only air pollutant which has been proven to be global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation." "

The Petroleum Industry had been warned about CO2 emissions 50 years ago; where were the people denying the impact of CO2 then?

Even earlier:

http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/6-pager-v5.pdf

Quote:

"Major oil and gas companies were on notice of potential climate change risks of their products by no later than the 1950s, and were repeatedly warned of those risks from the 1960s onward."

So while Greens might be blamed for contemporary situations; as happens in politics anyway, they can not be blamed for the science of the 1950s and 1960s, or the science that preceded the 20th Century.

Bazz, absolutely agree with your comment on electricity!

We are not likely to be locked out of the American steel market by new imposed tariff barriers, and we can also enact anti dumping laws here at home to prevent those being effectively locked out of the American market? Dumping their surplus production here.

What we can't ever prevent is, the affected dumping their surplus production on our other traditional markets. Unless we can seriously bring the price of locally made steel down.

We have just two options.

#1/ Put this production in the hands of Government facilitated and financed employee/working shareholder co-ops. And very doable as an off budget initiative!

#2/ quite massively reduce input costs. And when you are using huge amperage to run the direct reduction, single step, massive arc furnaces?

The only option actually available is much, much cheaper electricity and that is never ever going to be coal fired power, replete with all; and I do mean all its cost structures!

Any of which are not related to mining, transportation or washing then burning coal in coal fired power stations. But, artificially created debt burdens created for the sole purpose of avoiding tax.

Obscene executive salary entitlements and massively over rewarded boards/ludicrous golden hand shakes?

Plus the often unrealistic parasitic expectations of foreign shareholders/vultures.

Imagine if our steel smelting co-ops, Which would essentially run by the same working cohort! Minus the fully imported boards and CEOs; had their electricity supplied by, genuinely competing for your business, employee/working shareholder co-ops, and enabled with MSR thorium?

Prices just a fraction or one sixth of current charges, would be the new norm. Moreover, the only thing that prevents that reality is diabolically disingenuous anti nuke anti development, green ideological imperatives/BS!

Just that and the obvious vested interest by some really powerful players and their political puppets, in yesterday's coal/coal fired power? Bring down the cost of smelt as described and we can dominate the world's steel market that even the dumpers can't compete with.

A hell of a lot better than sitting hands, prevaricating and blame shifting!
Alan B.

DD: Absolutely disagree with you!

It has long since been almost exclusively GREEN POLICY to replace traditional blue collar industry with tourism!

No question of that and backed by speech after speech, Where Bob Brown and his equally, bald faced balderdash, successors, waxed lyrical on the virtues of tourism.

The very argument used to save THEIR old growth forests and wilderness areas, stored in various electronic archives as video and audio recordings.

And as we all now know, their enacted ideological imperatives came with a whole host of predictable, foreseeable negative consequences!

They or their kindred spirits routinely flout the law. Trespass and ride roughshod over the rights of others!

Thankfully stored on CDs and DVDs, where it can't be lost? And it is increased Tasmanian tourism that has forced renters out of once affordable homes! Absolutely no question, exclusively down to lame brain, errant green policies!

"Come on down and see our fabulous old growth forests and fascinating wilderness areas".

The most affected would seem to be elderly women, pensioners, the poor and downtrodden!

Tent city and extreme enduring poverty, here we come!
Alan B.

Our elderly and poor live in far worse conditions, in our own tent cities! Than anything the free loaders on Manus or Nauru currently experience!

Yet the greens are forever evocating, on how cruel and unjust is our treatment of these illegal arrivals is.

Illegal, because they'd already found reasonable refuge in transition countries! Then to a generic man destroyed their identifying documentation.

Plus paid people smugglers a years salary or more for a comparatively short trip from there to Christmas Island or other Australian territory; and in rotting hulks that could go down to the bottom, if the passage was prevented by inclement weather or routine border patrols!

Am I the only one seeing the huge hypocrisy here!?
Alan B.

Thanks, Viv, for a helpful summary of the damage done to our community by the green scourge.
Labor/Green is a filthy disease of our political system. The greens could not do the damage they inflict on us without Labor’s help.
Remember how Labor kept our minerals in the ground, and the mining boom could not happen until they were out of office?

There's a solid case for leaving some minerals in the ground, given in an over supplied market the prices fall as do the royalties and our share of tax!

These things are one offs! When they are gone they are gone and our astute leaders haven't done anything to replace our dependence on them or our main trading partner!

And that has now left us in a parlous position as the world slides closer and closer to armageddon and the climate change tipping point from where we cannot recover, just run headlong into an impending extinction event!

I mean, our energy policy, is the energy policy you have, when you're not having an energy policy!

So, what's their action? Close the eyes and hope it all goes away? Prevaricate and strenuously blame shift or when asked to account for their actions?

Treat us to an absolute diatribe/risible rant, of what labor did or didn't do while in office! And ditto every time they are asked to account for their actions or lack thereof!

While they count the millions mounting in various offshore accounts?
Alan B.

I was about to post the observation that ateday has again posted the most stupid post in the thread, when I noticed the post by Alan B.
It is unlikely anyone can post anything more stupid than Alan B, but ateday has done it, in his implication that any green policy could benefit the planet
Yes ateday, very few people can outstupid Alan B

By the way ateday, you use the term “denier”, which has no validity, because the fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science to deny.
Even the fraud promoter,John Cook, admits it has no justification.
“So he finally admits the banal, that there is no rational explanation for calling skeptical scientists “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers”. Bravo. (No one denies that climate changes, or thinks the Earth has no climate.). But this is terminology he uses everywhere, and it describes a group of people that don’t exist
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/john-cook-of-un-skepticalscience-admits-climate-change-denier-is-inaccurate-will-he-stop-name-calling/

Leo

A Denalist:

" A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence."

From:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denialist

Your JoNova reference is nothing but sophistry; all major science apex Agencies agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Her article is meaningless compared to:

"Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016 and is projected to continue to rise. (Very high confidence). (Ch. 6; Fig. ES.4)"

"Extreme temperatures in the contiguous United States are projected to increase even more than average temperatures (very high confidence)."

"The world’s oceans have absorbed about 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas warming since the mid-20th century, making them warmer and altering global and regional climate feedbacks. (Very high confidence)"

"Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7–8 inches (about 16–21 cm) since 1900, with about 3 of those inches (about 7 cm) occurring since 1993 (very high confidence)."

etc, etc

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Ant; then how do you explain the steady increase in temperature since
18th century & early 19th century, before oil use and coal use was in its infancy mainly in just one country ?

Could it just possibly be Malenakov Cycles ?
Sorry I think I have that name spelt wrong.

Bazz,

Its called Milankovitch cycles named after, surprisingly, Milutin Milankovic.

But they are unlikely to be the reason behind the rises since the 18th century.

Milankoviitch cycles work more on scales 10's or 100's of thouands of years and are therefore more appropriate to issues around ice ages.

As you say, the rise in temperatures began in the 18th century. Prior to that was a period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) when, among other things, the Thames used to regularly freeze. So the rise after that was merely returning the earth to more normal ranges. There was a further very cold period in the decades around 1800 (think Napoleon in Moscow) and after that there's been a fairly steady rise in temperatures through to current times.

Both of those earlier extremely cool periods corresponded with very low solar activity in terms of sunspots and solar cycle lengths.

Indeed if you look at plots of solar activity over these centuries they marry up pretty closely with temperatures ie the sun has been much more active since around 1850 and through to the late 20th century while it showed very little activity in the period around the cooler times.

So based on that, it seems more than likely that the big yellow thing was the main cause of the temperature rises from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Ponder this...many solar scientists predict that the sun is moving into a weakening phase which could carry through to mid 21st century. Some are even forecasting solar activity at levels like the Dalton minimum which occurred around 1800 or, worse, the Maunder minimum which was the main cause of the LIA.

So don't sell your fur coat just yet.

The definition quoted by the flea includes the words “supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence."
Despite being requested on numerous occasions to give a reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, the flea has failed to reference any such science. His definition has no relevance to the discussion as the fraud promoters have no science to deny.
The flea’s assertion has no relevance, it is the time-wasting effort of the unqualified, incompetent, unscientific ignoramus he has acknowledged himself to be.

Leo

As amusing as ever, your comments amount to flaming which I gather are disallowed by the rules of the site.

So you suggest that https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ does not correspond to science? The Report is supported by numerous peer reviewed research articles published in Journals.

The flea says:” you suggest that ttps://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ does not correspond to science? The Report is supported by numerous peer reviewed research articles published in Journals”.

Where did I say it was not science, flea? You are lying again in your assertion of something I said. What did I say, and where and when did I say it?
Remember what a fool you made of yourself the last time you told a blatant lie about something you alleged that I said?
Where is the Report supported in “numerous peer reviewed articles published in journals”?, or is that another of your baseless fantasies?
On what basis do you assert that I am “flaming, and what breaches of OLO requirements are you asserting I have made. Are you asserting that I have said anything untrue, or purely inflammatory?
If so, please specify the items, and your complaint.
I pointed out that your reference was not relevant, and you have failed to address that fact.

Leo

You have also flamed ateman, and AlanB.

The word "fraud" is often a word you use against anybody who supports the science of anthropogenic climate change. To deny that you would be telling a lie.

Quote:

"The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.

Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API."

From:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/climate-change-global-warming-oil-industry-radar-1960s-exxon-api-co2-fossil-fuels

Quote:

"In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor."

From:

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

In providing the above reference in your last post, why did you make reference void by taking off "h" of "http"?

Chapters from the reference provide numerous references with prefix of "doi" chichis an indication of their authenticity through registration. Those chapters are available from the reference provided, the hyperlink unmistakably is on heading of front page ... it goes CSSR, About, Chapters …."

A part sentence from the quote from 1968 reference:

“Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance ….”

Sentence from reference you misquoted:

"In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities.

Both clearly refer to anthropogenic climate change.

Tell me ant, are you a useful idiot, & actually believe this garbage you preach?

Or are you a gravy train rider, profiting from the garbage?

The flea constantly posts baseless lies in support of the climate fraud, and then has the temerity to accuse others of “flaming”, which is his constant activity.
If you are not guilty of fraud, flea, all you have to do is give us a reference to science which shows a measurable human effect by human activity on global climate. You have been asked repeatedly for this, and show your lack of breeding, and ignorance, by ignoring the question.
Do you assert that your lies and insults do not amount to flaming?
Here is some honest, real science, for your assistance, from Robert Carter in 2007:”
The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change
IS CARBON DIOXIDE A DANGEROUS POLLUTANT? Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colourless, odourless gas that has been present in earth’s atmosphere through time in trace amounts ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand parts per million (ppm). Average atmospheric values over the last few hundred thousand years"
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

ateboy

My apologies for not providing your name properly in post to Leo Lane.

Hasbeen

Yes, I do believe in science.
I do not get any payment for what I write.

Already millions of people die or are hit by severe medical conditions created by emissions from fossil fuels. The majority of those people are poor and live in Asian countries.

Many science disciplines provide consilience to climate science; meanwhile those who take a denier view are not able to argue from a consilience viewpoint.

BP says in relation to climate change:

"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."

Peak science bodies believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Where is the conclusive evidence that knocks out the science of climate change?

Fossil fuel companies taken to Court:

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-science-hearing-california-2544434233.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=3411338&utm_medium=social&utm_content=EcoWatch&utm_source=facebook

Quote:

"U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who is hearing a suit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five big oil corporations, ordered a historic tutorial in which both parties will have a chance to present their view of the science behind climate change, the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported March 7."

The companies involved are Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell.

Also Republican Arnold Schwarzeneger is planning to take fuel companies to court indicating they are involved with first degree murder.

https://www.scienceaf.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-sue-oil-industry-first-degree-murder

He states that oil companies have known for years about the impact of using fossil fuels.

Quote:

""The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people's lives, that it would kill," said Schwarzenegger."

Also:

"Schwarzenegger added that "if you walk into a room and you know you're going to kill someone, it's first degree murder. I think it's the same thing with oil companies.""

Viv

An article and film that delves into the Permian extinction event by going through rock samples and the chemical processes that occurred at the time.
The film goes through a step by step process showing how data was collected and what could be determined from the results obtained by Dr Benjamin Burger.

Similar experimentation has been completed in China.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/12/burning-coal-may-have-caused-earths-worst-mass-extinction?CMP=share_btn_fb

Hmmm, Ant; We have all seen some odd decisions made by courts.
What do you think would happen if the cases were proved ?
Would the court order a prohibition on the sale of petroleum products ?
As it is murder, could the court do anything else ?

How many millions would that order kill ?
Of course the legislators would have to intervene.
Interesting, only in America !

Bazz

People do not take legal action unless they believe they have a very strong case.
But, I agree, Courts often do not make decisions that seem sensible. Justice and legal concepts do not always fit.

Being a Geologist, I directed my last comment to Viv in relation to the work completed by Dr Burger, you might like to show where it is wrong?

Dr Burger's film provides much detail about chemical processes that led to a mass extinction. The research conducted by Dr Burger falls in line with Chinese research.

Are you able to debunk the chemical processes discussed in the film by Dr Burger?

Let me get this straight? Some peanut yank judge is going to shut down petrol? Of course the greens will insist we do but China and India will laugh their proverbial off.
All my life you idiots have been telling me the end of the world is nigh. Mainly they think it frightens me? Not frightened and only contempt for silly little ant!
We need to ensure no taxpayer money is wasted on this rubbish and if a researcher says all the birds are going to die, stop all funding immediately. It would never happen again

The flea says” People do not take legal action unless they believe they have a very strong case.
But, I agree, Courts often do not make decisions that seem sensible. Justice and legal concepts do not always fit.
What a stupid remark, flea.
You know very well that the climate fraud promoter, Michael Mann, constantly starts legal cases he cannot win, against people who have told the truth about his fraudulent science. The cases go on forever, with Mann evading a hearing, until Mann loses, or they peter out in some way.
Mann sued Mark Steyn, and while the case was stalled by Mann’s efforts to evade a hearing, wrote and published a book containing numerous criticisms of Mann, and his flawed science by fellow scientists.
Steyn finally had part of the case before the court, which Mann lost.
He has another case, against Tim Ball, which he will lose
He would have to be as stupid as the flea to believe that he had any chance of winning the cases when he initiated them..
Schwarznegger appears to have read the book by the lying charlatan Naiomi Oreskes, and taken it as fact

Ant, I wouldn't have a clue about the author you mentioned.
What I was pointed out was that if they won their cases and the judge
ordered all oil & coal be banned from being burnt, by the time the
judge closed the court they would have to walk down to the ground
floor by the stairs and the supermarkets would be being emptied.

That is why they just cannot do such a thing or millions would starve.

Oh Ant, perhaps you mean that the result of the case would mean the
companies would have to compensate the public.
Same result, the financial impact would mean that the companies would have to be wound up.

Bazz

You wrote: "Ant, I wouldn't have a clue about the author you mentioned."

That is the nub of the issue; I gave a reference and suggested how you might reach it. The film is about the ignition of coal by molten magna in the Permian period. Dr Burger took numerous rock samples and identified chemical processes that had occurred during the mass extinction event.

Here is reference:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/12/burning-coal-may-have-caused-earths-worst-mass-extinction?CMP=share_btn_fb

Being critical of the author or source doesn't cut it; watch the film by Dr Burger, it displays a step by step process of taking samples through to analysing their chemical composition and drawing conclusions.

In relation to fossil fuel companies, they have been aware of the impact of using their product for 50+ years, their own research showed the dangers. Companies have made no attempt to research alternative energy and diversify. References have been provided.

The flea continually trawls the net for material produced by fraud promoters, which he inflicts on this site to waste the time of sensible people.
Dr. Hamburger is his latest find, and this extract from the referenced site is a fair sample:
” the increase in atmospheric carbon levels is due entirely to humans burning fossil fuels”
This is an indication of Hamburger’s “science”
His motivation is political, and anti coal.
His grasp of science is as tenuous as the flea. His own wording shows that it is all guesswork, with no relible scientific basis.
Thank the flea for another time wasting consideration of what the flea considers “science” from a fraud promoter.

The flea says:” fossil fuel companies, they have been aware of the impact of using their product for 50+ years, their own research showed the dangers. Companies have made no attempt to research alternative energy and diversify. References have been provided.”
Who said they have been aware, and of what they were aware?
What does your garbled nonsense mean in your confused mind. Who saw the research of the companies?Whose assertion is it that they knew?
Words are to convey information, flea. You seem to lack any understanding of this fact, so your words only result in irritation at their meaningless content.

Leo

When answers are not available to anthropognic climate change science by contrarians, the abuse and flaming follows.

It gets hard not to have answers to some of the references provided such as a Report to the American Petroleum Institute, the mega CSSR reference ( with numerous references) and a reference to Dr Burger's geology and chemistry.

Dr Burger has submitted a manuscript to be published, in his manuscript Dr Burger provides the data he obtained, it took only a few seconds to obtain access to his paper. In his Preface, Dr Burger relates his findings to whats occurring now.

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Report from CIEL which draws together a case against fossil fuel companies; once again it draws on many references, see Endnotes.

http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf

An email received today displayed articles appropriate to climate change, so I don't need to google much to obtain references. An example, The Washington Post has an article about research of AMOC, over a number of years observations have been carried out on the overturning of waters in the Northern Atlantic Ocean which have slowed down by melt water:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/14/the-melting-arctic-is-already-messing-with-a-crucial-part-of-the-oceans-circulation-scientists-say/?utm_term=.44fa091a2dce&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

Out of interest did a google scholar search of "AMOC slowdown" it displayed many references.

The flea says:” When answers are not available to anthropognic climate change science by contrarians, “
You are the only one without an answer, flea. Are you calling yourself a contrarian, now?
When have you supplied anything but irrelevant nonsense. When did you supply a reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate?You have posted no answers, no science relevant to the topic, and shown a complete lack of any comprehension of science.
You represent yourself to be a geologist now, after all these months of representing yourself as unqualified. How did that happen?

Leo

Funny how you know better than the various scientists I quote.
Being abusive and providing no evidence to support what you say is meaningless.
If you were able to discount Dr Burger's research with empirical evidence that would settle the matter. Except, there are other studies completed in Russia and China in relation to the Permian mass extinction which can be found on google scholar.

Science operates on the basis of finding how a hypothesis is wrong; once a hypothesis is found to be supported; then, further refinement of results continues. Just saying something is wrong is an opinion which doesn't cut it against the scientific method.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00083-9

Quite:

"Here we identify the initial emplacement pulse of laterally extensive sills as the critical deadly interval. Heat from these sills exposed untapped volatile-fertile sediments to contact metamorphism, likely liberating the massive greenhouse gas volumes needed to drive extinction."

The work of Dr Bruger fits in with the work of Burgess et al (referenced above) further by identifying the chemical processes, and the resulting creation of pyrites and mercyury etc. These support the view of high acid in the Ocean and high levels of greenhouse gases, and hugh warmth.

Further references:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X08007292

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/3/195/130777/climate-warming-in-the-latest-permian-and-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html

Numerous other references can be see through using google scholar.

The flea says:” Funny how you know better than the various scientists I quote.”
Yes, flea, give us some examples, which you noticed. It is no doubt because you always quote low grade scientists. Your complete inability to grasp any understanding of science no doubt contributes to your ludicrous situation.
We are still awaiting your reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, so you are still a dishonest fraud supporter..
That is an accurate description of your situation, so do not start your dishonest whining about “abuse”. If you have any honest criticism of the description of your situation, please advise its substance.

Leo

You say: "It is no doubt because you always quote low grade scientists."

I haven't quoted Stephen Hawking; but, he certainly subscribed to anthropogenic climate change.
Joseph Fourier, who developed mathematical theorems still used, and suggested that the atmosphere had an influence on warming Earth in the early 1800s, low grade?
Eunice Foote, with her experimentation in the 1850s on the behaviour of gases to heat, low grade?
It has been suggested that Professor Jennifer Francis should be nominated for a Noble Prize for her work on Arctic Amplification, low grade?
In 2018, we have Dr Burger displaying chemical changes in rock formations between the Permian and Triassic epochs, low grade?

However, we have Leo Lane who knows better than all peak Science Agencies and scientists at the top of their discipline on anthropogenic climate change. The same Leo Lane who made a reference unattainable by knocking off the "h" of "http".

Quote from Leo Lane's comment at 12 March, 10.26pm:

”... you suggest that ttps://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ does not correspond to science? The Report is supported by numerous peer reviewed research articles published in Journals”.

The flea says:” we have Leo Lane who knows better

All I do is point out that they have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so their assertions are baseless and fraudulent. When you grasp that, you might stop putting them up for ridicule, but you may as well remind people that I have shown what nonsense you post.None of what you post is relevant without science to show a measurable human effect, so the scientists so far are irrelevant
Jennifer Francis was referred to by the fraud backing ABC as a “kick ass scientist”, whatever the clowns at the ABC mean by that. Her fraud supporting science on the Arctic has been shown to be baseless and invalid,
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.





TMeteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

……………. ONCLUSIONS
FV (2012) cited in the introduction of this article is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/meteorologist-trashes-jennifer-francis-extreme-weather-theory/
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

The flea says:” we have Leo Lane who knows better than all peak Science Agencies and scientists at the top of their discipline on anthropogenic climate change”

You do not have to repeat that fact, flea, as all I do is point out that they have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so their assertions are baseless and fraudulent. When you grasp that, you might stop putting them up for ridicule, but you may as well remind people that I have shown what nonsense you post.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/meteorologist-trashes-jennifer-francis-extreme-weather-theory/
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

Leo

Meteorologists are not climate scientists.
To try to knock over the science of anthropogenic climate change with blogs might satisfy you Leo; except, one Meteorologist down playing climate change doesn't cut it. Really, is that the best you can do?

Professor Francis's paper of 2012 was critiqued, it is now 2018 and she has worked further on her hypothesis. Your reference displays no citations underpinning the view of Chuck Wiese.

Try google scholar typing in "Arctic Amplification", 80,800 results, unlike the standard google the results stay with the specific request.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=0&q=arctic+amplification&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Leo, you keep using the word "fraud"; but, where is it really emanating from?

The flea says: Meteorologists are not climate scientists. “and ” one Meteorologist down playing climate change doesn't cut it. Really, is that the best you can do?”
You say stupid things, don’t you, flea?
If you read the scholarly critique by, Chuck Wiese, of the paper by Jennifer Francis, you will realise, if your mental limitations allow it, that Francis is out of her depth in meteorology, and her paper needs the attention of someone whose expertise is meteorology, like Wiese. You will say anything, won’t you, flea, no matter how ridiculous.
My impression is that you have not read the paper, and, of course, are not a meteorologist, are you, and would not have my analytical skill, to understand it, so you talk ignorant nonsense, having nothing sensible to contribute.
You have no science to support your backing of the climate fraud, so you act purely on your dishonesty.There is no science which would prove you honest, is there, flea? That is why you only ever post irrelevant material.

Leo

You say Chuck Wiese wrote a scholarly article, really.
For a scholarly article on science expect to see references to support an article.

"DEFINITIONS: Scholarly or peer-reviewed journal articles are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their fields. In the sciences and social sciences, they often publish research results. Substantive news articles are reliable sources of information on events and issues of public concern."

Wiese is not a Climate Scientist, he is a Meteorologist; and hence, is not an expert in the area he wrote about. Where is his work published other than at contrarian blog sites?
There are no references for Chuck Wiese provided by google scholar. Your reference by Chuck Wiese is not even up to date in relation to Arctic Amplification, much research has been completed since 2012, the year of your reference.

Leo you stated:

"... Jennifer Francis, you will realise, if your mental limitations allow it, that Francis is out of her depth in meteorology, and her paper needs the attention of someone whose expertise is meteorology, like Wiese."

Professor Jennifer Francis obtained a BA in Meteorology and extended her qualifications by obtaining a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences. Professor Francis has many research papers published; so, suggesting she is out of her depth in relation to meteorology is completely farcical.

So the 80,800 references provided by google scholar on Arctic Amplification don't count?

You really are quite amusing; Leo, in trying to defend the indefensible.

The flea says:” ; Leo, in trying to defend the indefensible.”
Fraser produced a paper on Arctic Amplifification, which Wiese showed, in detail, was wrong.
The flea attempted to turn this into a consideration of whether Wiese’s article is scholarly, and avoids the question of whether Fraser’s paper is flawed.
The flea has posted reference to a stack of links on Google Scholar, with no explanation of their relevance to the correctness of Fraser’s paper, or any criticism of Wiese.I am not defending anything. I have shown Fraser’s paper to be wrong, and the flea has no answer.
We can only assume he is using his usual ploy of posting irrelevance, because he has no answers. His abysmal ignorance of science is largely related to his refusal, or inability, to take relevance of material into account.
He has not stated why he thinks any reference he has posted affects the correctness or otherwise of the paper.

The flea says :” , you keep using the word "fraud"; but, where is it really emanating from?
It emanates from the fraudulent actions of yourself and other supporters of the assertion that global warming is caused by human emissions, when you can reference no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. The fraud is the representation of something to be true which is known to be untrue.
The flea’s term, “denier” is fraudulent, because, when asked for the science, alleged to be “denied”, he is unable to supply it, because it does not exist.The fraud promoters have no science to deny.
You understand the emanation of fraud, now, flea, from yourself and the other fraud promoters? You tell lies, then show your dishonesty, when asked to justify your assertions.
The flea’s thinking is so addled, that, on another thread, he asked me to supply details of convictions for fraud, to justify my assertions of fraud. How ridiculous is that?

Flaming again, Leo.

A very unimpressive way to try and make your point.
Google scholar will provide reliable information; unlike blog sites.

Yes, flea, as usual, no science. You do not know any, and cannot find any,to support your false assertions, but you make a baseless accusation of flaming, because it is all a dishonest fraud supporter who has cornered himself with his lies, as you have, can do

Here is a post I wrote in 2014 to give the flea the science which demolished the fraud promoters’ baseless assertions on global warming.
As I said, ant, I note that you ignore science, but I will post Professor Robert Carter’s pertinent comment on AGW again. You have seen it before:
“" our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements 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."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 3:39:10 PM

It remains the situation today, but the flea tells the same baselss lies, and can reference no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.

Leo

Is this the Telegraph science article you referred?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/03/22/bizarre-six-inch-alien-skeleton-found-buried-desert-human-baby/

All articles from your reference relate to 2018 and a couple to 2017 from the Telegraph reference you provided.

Oceans are warming Leo; regardless of Dr Carter's comments about satellites picking up inferred temperature from slabs of atmosphere. If you follow the science of providing inferred temperature from satellites you would not be pushing that argument. Drs Spencer and Christy have had to change how temperature is interpreted from satellites a number of times.
Nature itself displays where temperatures are heading, the long term trend lines are very clear.

Oceans warm and cool slowly on the basis of their sheer volume.

Yes, flea, it is an old link which no longer connects to the relevant material. This one is currently appropriate https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/3130/1/3130_Carter_2007.pdf:
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colourless, odourless gas that has been present in earth’s atmosphere through time in trace amounts...... r3). It is therefore crystal clear that there is nothing inherently unusual, nor necessarily dangerous, about the ‘extra’ carbon dioxide that is currently being contributed to the atmosphere by human activity, which anyway amounts annually to only about three per cent of the natural flux. Together with oxygen, carbon dioxide is a staff of life for earth’s biosphere because the metabolism of plants depends upon its absorption. Increasing carbon dioxide in the range of about 200 - 1000 ppm has repeatedly been shown to be beneficial for plant growth, and to increase plants’ efficiency of water use (Eamus, 1996; Saxe, Ellsworth and Heath, 1998; Robinson et al, 1998). Prima facie, therefore, there is no reason to assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 500 - 1000 ppm are dangerous, or that such levels would have dramatically adverse ecological effects. Rather, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide over this range is mostly beneficial (Idso, 2001; and many papers listed at the web site CO2 Science). Following from this discussion, that carbon dioxide is, by definition, not a pollutant.
At least you, for once, did not repeat your request for names of “scientists convicted for fraud” I have never referred to convictions, only to fraudulent actions, plenty of which are on display in the Climate-gate emails. Do not refer me again to the pseudo enquiries, run by the fraud promoters, “clearing” the miscreants, as the emails speak for themselves. Even an ignoramus knows that carrying out a fraud is different to being convicted of fraud, so if you think your question was “clever”, it merely shows the addled state of your mind.
You still have no science to support your position, just a baseless nonsensical narrative

Leo

There had been a number of investigations into the so called "climate gate", including an investigation by the British Parliament. All that you can subscribe to is a conspiracy theory.

Dr Burger's work that I have referred to earlier displays how greenhouse gases and otter aspects of climate change were evident in the samples that he analysed.

In the Preface to his pre published manuscript Dr Burger very clearly relates what he discovered in relation to the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period with what is being seen at present.

Quote:

"This evidence suggests large amounts of naturally occurring emissions of coal combustion at the Permian-Triassic boundary, likely caused by the large scale volcanic eruptions of the coeval Siberian Traps. The resulting global changes associated with the abrupt enrichment of the atmosphere in carbon dioxide was the major contributor to the mass extinction event."

Also:

"In Payne and Clapham’s 2012 review of the Permian-Triassic boundary they suggested “the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for the twenty-first century....” The results of this study amplify that statement, as evidence gathered in this study suggest that large emissions of burning coal and other hydrocarbons during the Siberian Trap volcanic event was largely responsible for Earth’s largest mass extinction 252 million years ago. A greater understanding of this ancient event may be the key in helping researchers forecast changes facing the Earth today."

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Burger/publication/323402270_What_caused_Earth%27s_largest_mass_extinction_event_New_evidence_from_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_in_northeastern_Utah/links/5a9488b345851535bcdab921/What-caused-Earths-largest-mass-extinction-event-New-evidence-from-the-Permian-Triassic-boundary-in-northeastern-Utah.pdf

Once again I could not view your reference.

Yes, flea, I have noticed difficulties sometimes in accessing Carter’s material, which could be from interference with the site
Here is his comment, with a fresh link
“So the evidence for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change (the parallel rise in the late 20th century of both atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature) is now negated.
In February this year, the IPCC released the SPM for its Fourth (Science) Assessment Report, followed on Friday by the full report. Using GCMs, the new report projects a temperature increase by 2100 of between 1.1 to 6.4C. This is a wider range than the 1.6 to 5.8C projected in the third assessment report, which implies less rather than more certainty regarding future temperature trends. The report also continues the regrettable IPCC practice of allocating arbitrary numerical probability estimates to the causes and risks of future climate change.
In the present state of knowledge, no scientist can justify the statement: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due [90 per cent probable] to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," as stated in the 2007 SPM.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate.html

Leo

No hyperlinks to research backing Dr Carter's opinion.
A further IPCC Report up dating the one Dr Carter is critical of has been published.

Satellite data can not be compared to temperature measured at land based weather stations.
As stated earlier, satellites do not measure temperature directly and much manipulation of data is required to reach an inferred temperature. Satellites as they become older change their orbit throwing out of wack the data they produce. Drs Christy and Spencer have had to alter how they manipulate the data from satellites a number of times.

Oceans are warming, it is shown by a number of physically observable features; such as sea grass areas dying, coral reefs around Earth being bleached, fish species moving habitats etc. Temperature off Maria Island, Tasmania has been measured for several years and displays warming. Physical impacts of the warming of Tasmanian East Coast waters have occurred periodically.

Research by Thomas Karl et al has stated in abstract:

"Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632

The Karl et al research came in for a lot of criticism from contrarians on the basis of a colleague of Karl's publicly made a complaint about the research. The complaint was about an administrative issue, not the research itself.
Temperature for 2017, a non el nino year was higher than the temperature measure for 1998 an el nino year, 2016 provided the highest temperature ever recorded, and years prior to 2016 were also warmer than 1998.
To push the hiatus argument now displays a lack of knowledge of how new data has knocked it out the opinion.

So where is the science that Dr Carter is meant to have provided?

Leo

A Court case is progressing at present where San Francisco and Oakland have taken fossil fuel companies to Court.
The Chevron barrister has used the IPCC as evidence; though, they stated that consumers are responsible for the emissions created. But, Executives and workers from fossil fuel companies also use their own product. Logically it is not an argument that holds very well.

Lindzen and Monckton are providing different types of arguments; mutually exclusive to what the Chevron barrister is saying; it displays the dogs breakfast of various arguments that contrarians are pushing.

The Chevron 2018 presentation contradicts the point you were pushing through your 2007 Dr Carter reference.

Yes, flea, another of your narrative without supporting references.Chevron does not contradict Carter
I have a reference to the climate fraud, which is a centre of interest to you
:” This is why Mann fabricated the Hockey Stick Graph and with this reason being the perpetration of a fraud. Dr Tim Ball, in 2011, famously declared Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” and has faced a six-year legal battle from Mann over this controversy.
But as the evidence above shows, “state pen” is probably where Mann should be!
As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann. Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):
“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
https://principia-scientific.org/what-michael-manns-hockey-stick-graph-gave-to-un-climate-fraud/

Leo

It is very easy to find the source of the quoted statements below:

Quote:

"Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change"

Also:

"In other words, the oil industry’s strategy is to argue that individual climate impacts are difficult to pin down, and in any case, the blame lies not with the producers, but with the consumers of their products."

Consumers are blamed by Chevron while acknowledging the damage fossil fuels create.

And from another sources:

"CHEVRON WOULD LIKE you to know that it believes in climate change. It also believes people cause it by burning carbon-based fuel—the kind Chevron extracts from the ground, refines, and sells."

"Prominent climate contrarians are seeking to insert their views into an unusual science tutorial scheduled to be held in federal court on Wednesday by offering "friend of the court" briefs that run contrary to the prevailing mainstream consensus."

Introduction to Court Case:

https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2017/oakland-and-san-francisco-lawsuits-hold-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable-their#.WrbR7GZL2CQ

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20032018/judge-questions-climate-change-answers-fossil-fuels-lawsuit-california-cities-sea-level-rise-global-warming

https://mashable.com/2018/03/22/climate-science-in-court-oil-companies/#t9wl8O8tFaqF

Quote from Mashable:

""It's a lot harder to lie to the court under penalty of perjury," said Siegel.

Richard Wiles, Executive Director of the Center for Climate Integrity, agrees.

"The fact that Chevron’s lawyer, rather than an actual climate scientist, provided the court with its version of climate history suggests that the industry could not find a scientist willing to carry its water," Wiles said in a statement. "

A comment touching on fraud of contrarian views.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/the-associated-press-the-latest-chevron-lawyer-no-debate-about-climate-science.html

Another source stating Chevron agreed anthropogenic climate change was accepted by the fossil fuel company.

Where is your science, Leo?

You have no idea, do you flea?
Carter’s science has not been dealt with. It demolishes the “science” of the IPCC, which has no answer to Carter.
It does not matter to Chevron, which has moved to dismiss the suit
“This is not the first (or even the second or third) time a plaintiff has tried to plead global-warming related tort claims,” the oil companies said. “Federal common law does not provide relief here.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/03/21/chevron-says-climate-change-lawsuit-not-viable-as-it-prepares-to-tutor-judge-on-the-science/#7ab4c5decd47

You have done your best to mislead yourself by referencing the disreputable ICS, and succeeded.
Carter’s science stands. There Is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
If there is, you have failed to reference it.
Your ignorance includes a total inability to grasp the concept of science, doesn't it, flea? You just need to understand that your nonsense cannot assist you

Leo

Still no science; sophistry does not knock out science.

The Court in San Francisco asked for tutorials in relation to climate change. The Barrister for Chevron chose to promote climate science. He used the IPCC as a reference. So my point stands, the case Chevron posited was mutually exclusive to Dr Carter opinion.
Science becomes more refined as time goes on; it is now 2018, not 2007.

Whether the case continues is not known, my point is that Chevron has pushed IPCC as their source in the Court setting, and agreed greenhouse gases are increasing and Earth is warming.

You are asserting, flea, that you are stupid enough to consider that a formal statement by a lawyer, setting out the basis of the parameters of his case, for the purpose of a hearing, with no mention of Carter’s science, can somehow nullify it.
His acceptance of science which hs been nullified by Carter has no effect whatsoever, on the science and he has indicated that he will tender no evidence on the science.
Refer us to science, flea, which refutes Carter.
Nonsense remarks, dishonestly inferring that the science has changed simply emphasise your failure.

The Court case has not started well for the fraud promoters.
“ it was a difficult day for these Californian cities and their “experts” pushing doom and gloom. No more so when Chevron’s lawyer produced material used in bond offerings by these cities. As they were trying to raise money and loans for spending, the same cities underplayed the effects and emphasized the very uncertainty they are now criticizing the oil companies for. After all, no one wants to lend money to a city that is going to be flooded in a few years. So the plaintiffs were in court looking for money contradicting their other statements they made looking for money from a different source. This was not a good day for Climate Alarmists. It was, however, a good day for the truth. Let’s hope we have many more of them.”
https://principia-scientific.org/california-court-shines-bright-light-on-junk-climate-science/

Leo

You said:

"The flea says:” you suggest that ttps://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ does not correspond to science? The Report is supported by numerous peer reviewed research articles published in Journals”.

Where did I say it was not science, flea?"

The reference should be:

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

It is much easier to access through clearing the "s".

Either it is science, or it is not.

I provided a reference to a film in relation to the research of Dr Burger.
When fossil fuels are burnt they leave a trace, Dr Burger followed such a trail, a chemical and mineral trail. Chemistry and geology are recognised as a science disciplines I gather. Geologists have a good idea on how minerals are formed.

You stated:

"Dr. Hamburger is his latest find, and this extract from the referenced site is a fair sample:
” the increase in atmospheric carbon levels is due entirely to humans burning fossil fuels”
This is an indication of Hamburger’s “science”
His motivation is political, and anti coal."

Except; Leo, Dr Burger displayed how he reached that conclusion.

Here is his pre-published manuscript:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Burger/publication/323402270_What_caused_Earth%27s_largest_mass_extinction_event_New_evidence_from_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_in_northeastern_Utah/links/5a9488b345851535bcdab921/What-caused-Earths-largest-mass-extinction-event-New-evidence-from-the-Permian-Triassic-boundary-in-northeastern-Utah.pdf

At the end of his manuscript Dr Burger provides tables of the chemical analysis from the research he did.
It doesn't fit into your view; but, dismissing it with the words "... his motivation is political, and anti coal" ... is just an opinion, it doesn't relate to science.

My description of Hamburger’s “science” is based on my reading of his paper., and is accurate. Do you have an alternate reason for his baseless lie? There is nothing on which to base his gratuitous assertion about human omissions, so nothing to support his mistaken notion of any use for his work. You are talking nonsense, flea,
Like yourself, he has no science to back his baseless assertion. That is obvious, even to an ignoramus, so stop wasting your time.
You know that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, don’t you, flea?
You are just too ill-bred and uncivil to say so, and you ignore the question.

Leo

Just reading a research paper does not negate it, to be able to negate Dr Burger"s paper you need to go through exactly the same research processes as he did. You need to remember other research has been completed in other parts of the world which underpin Dr Burger's research.
You have not negated Dr Burger's research all you have done is express an opinion which does not stand up to research.

Remember your comment in relation to:

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

"Where did I say it was not science, flea?"

Enjoy being a straw man, Leo?

You are now fully in troll mode, flea, and not trying to be rational, just to be an inexcusable, dishonest nuisance.
The paper, which you referenced contains this“ Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
This is an outright lie, since this is exactly what Carter did, and no one has refuted his work.
I do not remember the comment you attribute to me, and you have not identified the material to which you believe it was directed.When and where do you say I made the comment?
You recall that in the past you have concocted a comment, and dishonestly attributed it to me.
It is clear that you continue to dredge up lies, and ineffective assertions of science, and post incomprehensible, garbled comments, while ignoring, in your ill-bred manner, the well based refutation of the rubbish you post

Leo

If Dr Carter only provided op eds; and didn't publish his views about climate change in Journals; then, from a science point of view he would not be taken seriously. All you have done in relation to quoting Dr Carter is provided a non evidence based opinion. Newspapers such as the Telegraph or material published on contrarian sites are not spots where scientists debate science issues.

But, I guess your last comment is a deflection away from the research of Dr Burger, who displayed the chemical reactions when a thin layer of magna caused coal to be ignited. It created sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain, created strong carbonic acid which is deadly in water, created CO2 which warmed the atmosphere to an extreme extent. He discusses the creation of mercury, and also associated with the burning of coal, pyrites was formed. In the film already referenced, Dr Burger talks about the formation of pyrites as being the stuff of nightmares. In the film about 30 minutes in he begins to discuss his results.
Dr Burger uses Chemistry not ideology to come to his conclusions. He indicated in the film similar work had already been completed in Japan.

https://youtu.be/uDH05Pgpel4

You can abuse me if you wish; Leo, but abuse scientists through suggesting they are associated with fraud is very low.

We do not need further reminders of your ignorance and dishonesty, flea, like yourstatement” Dr Carter only provided op eds; and didn't publish his views about climate change in Journals; then, from a science point of view he would not be taken seriously. All you have done in relation to quoting Dr Carter is provided a non evidence based opinion”.
I have posted extracts of Dr. Carters’. Either you did not read them, or as is usual for a fraud promoter, like yourself,you are lying about an honest scientist.
Carter was a well published and internationally renowned climate scientist:” a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy was based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.
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 Hayes Windfarm Environment Court case in New Zealand, and 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.
Dr. Carter’s research was supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He received no research funding from special interest organization
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016
Much of what I have posted about fraud promoting scientists, has been copies of commentary, or extracts from their own words, which show their guilt. I have never, as the flea routinely does, posted any untruths.
I respond to assertions with science and fact. The flea, mulishly, avoids response to reasonable requests suchas any science to show a measurable human effect on climate.

You have indicated, flea, that you prefer to be told by scientists about fraud promoting scientists. You say :” (to)abuse scientists through suggesting they are associated with fraud is very low.”Accurate description of the conduct of fraud promoters is not, as you deceptively and untruthfully term it, “abuse”, but honest observation, something outside the ability of a dishonest fraud backer like yourself.
Here are the words of an honest, high-minded scientist:
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC‟s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.‖ -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/unfccc-public-submissions/1000%20scientists%20dissent%20copy.pdf
What does a low minded dishonest fraud backer like yourself, think of that accurate description? Are you low enough to refer to it as “abuse”?

Leo

The comments I made were in relation to the references you provided from Dr Carter and his comments about the IPCC.

Points Dr Carter had an opinion on:

It hasn't warmed since 1998:

Wrong. Even 2017 was warmer than 1998; 2017 was not an el nino year as was 1998. Years before 2017 were also warmer than 1998.

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature:

Already experimentation carried out by Eunice Foote was presented at a Symposium in 1856.
I have witnessed experimentation using radiated warmth, CO2, and a control a number of times.
There is no doubt that CO2 picks up warmth.
Without CO2 and greenhouse gases the Earth would be so cold we would not be able to survive. The moon does not have an atmosphere and temperature differences are huge, we would not last a moment without space suits. The moon is roughly the same distance from the sun as Earth.

Satellites provide accurate temperature:

Satellites provide inferred temperature; they do not use thermometers, data needs to be calculated (modelled).

Anyway, temperatures can be inferred from whats happening on Earth's surface; for example, permafrost thawing. Temperature needs to remain warmer than usual for some time for permafrost to thaw.

Heartlands was involved in denying the impact of tobacco on health; Heartlands is not a credible Agency. Heartlands has been financed by fossil fuel companies to create doubt in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Dr Carter has also been associated with another neo conservative Agency the IPA.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bob_Carter

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/30/climate-change-sceptic-bob-carter

Sub Heading:
"Like many deniers of man-made global warming, Prof Carter's views may say more about his politics than scientific evidence"

http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/bob-carters-financial-post-gish-gallop-scientific-denial.html

Back again, flea, to remind us that you have no science, so follow the standard fraud promoting procedure about science you cannot refute. You tell lies about Professor Robert Carter, whose science has demolished the failed science of the IPCC.
Lying about a successful, honest scientist is the best the fraud promoters, like yourself, can do.
You cannot sink any lower, can you, flea?

Leo

What rubbish about Dr Carter having demolished climate science.

Morano is associated with Science Denier Groups, he is not a climate scientist.
In relation to reference provided, he tries to debunk earlier IPCC Reports; old news, there has been a subsequent IPCC Report published.

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

Information provided by climate scientists.

http://polluterwatch.org/category/freetagging/marc-morano

You really are desperate to reference Morano and Heartlands.

Science does not operate on the basis of an honest and hard working approach; it relies on data.
Being involved with IPA or Heartlands suggests that ideology is a strong determinant in how people form their opinions.

The flea says: here has been a subsequent IPCC Report published.”
Where is the link to it, flea? Or is it like the non- existent science that supports the climate fraud your lies assert?
You say:“Morano is associated with Science Denier Groups, he is not a climate scientist.
What science are they denying to enable use of this invalid and dishonest term?
I have continually requested from you a reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
In your ill-bred, mulish manner, you fail to acknowledge the question, much less answer it.
You use baseless, fraud promoter’s terminology,like denier, which you are aware is baseless, and dishonest, as one would expect from a dishonest fraud supporter
You linked us to a nonsense article by Connor Gibson. Is he a climate scientist, flea? Or just another liar you have dredged up?
Apparently the latter, because here is an extract from the dunce’s article.
Lie 1
“a contingent of a dying breed of science deniers attending the COP with the simple intention of interference.
Lie 2 “ I know what it's like to look into the eyes of someone who is paid to misrepresent truth with confidence, and attack my natural hesitation to call out his dishonestly.”
Lie3 “ His intention was to make me question myself, and thus appear uncertain and discredited to anyone reviewing our conversation. The actual content of our conversation matters much less than the aesthetic”.
What the dunce means is that he made a fool of himself by repeating a fraud promoting lie, but it doesn’t count because Morano made him do it
There are plenty more lies, but do not waste you time looking for any science or truth, as that never appears in any reference from the flea,
“Connor joined Greenpeace Investigations in 2010 after completing an environmental studies degree at the University of Vermont. He is based in Oakland, CA.”
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/bios/connor-gibson/
This clarifies why Connor never tells the truth, and was located by the flea in his endless dredging the net for climate liars.

You posted the following, flea, and it does not make sense:
“Satellite data can not be compared to temperature measured at land based weather stations.
As stated earlier, satellites do not measure temperature directly and much manipulation of data is required to reach an inferred temperature. Satellites as they become older change their orbit throwing out of wack the data they produce. Drs Christy and Spencer have had to alter how they manipulate thedata from satellites a number of times.”
Would you please supply the source?

Leo

In relation to satellites, there are a number of references; if you follow science you would be aware of the issues of satellites providing inferred temperature. Some time ago I gave a reference to Dr Spencer's site.

Google Scholar has 753,000 references for "problems with satellite measure of temperature".

You asked for the latest IPCC Report.

There was a IPCC Report published in 2014, very easy to find.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

In relation to comments from 29 March 2018 1:23:31 AM

It is a logical fallacy to be abusive in trying to make an argument; a sign that there is nothing of substance to hold up an argument.

More importantly.
You have been offensive to many commentators over the years, but your offensive comments (suggesting lying) about people who are honestly working hard, who do not subscribe to Online Opinion is extremely poor, I'll make a complaint.

[Deleted for abuse.]