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.