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?