Why is nuclear energy being rejected for our power generation?

On and on it goes. It's a total waste of time discussing the huge con of CO2-caused climate change anymore. People have proved, generation after generation, that they are suckers for any old scare mongering dreamed up by really bad people. The criminals who started the climate change/electricity rip-off/wealth transer racket should have been in jail long ago, along with the politicians who let them get away with it. It hasn't happened. It will not happen; and the crooks are probably already working on the next stunt for idiots to fall for.

We had a laptop break down at the beginning of the Century.
Acid rain destroying forests was a major problemin the past , dealt with.
CFCs causing the hole in the ozone layer was identified and almost all countries dealt with it; except, China is still using CFCs in some factories.

CO2 does not know boundaries, so emissions from Australian coal in Asia will come back and bite.
Think about wet micro bursts .. rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago, and did not have the longevity of the ones being experienced on weekly basis around Earth now. Nothing ideological about that.
Think about dry lightning.

We require greenhouse gases to survive, otherwise the Earth would be virtually uninhabital due to the extreme cold.

It is science that informs people about climate change, not the Green lobby. If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, then you do not believe in Physics or Chemistry.

If taking into account natural forces, we would now be well on the way to an ice age.
A short film about ice cores, it shows how science is misrepresented by deniers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ...

Dan Britt, a Geologist, discuses Milankovitch cycles, and very clearly states we should be going into an ice age. Professor Britt very clearly states that anthropogenic climate change has turned around the ice age to a warming of Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

Sophistry does not make any dent in science. Many science disciplines uphold the science of climate change. The science of climate change has been in existence since Fourier back in the 1820s. Denial of the climate has been about for about three decades when it was realised the profits of major corporations would be damaged.

An analogy, might be to completely fill a bath, then turn the tap right down to a drip and leave it.

What we are meant to believe is that the carbon created over millions of years has no impact on Earth when released in a couple of centuries. Burning the carbon creates CO2, the mining produces methane. There is nothing ideological about that.

ttbn, you say"

"The criminals who started the climate change/electricity rip- ........"

So criminal action began in the 1820s with Fourier. Or, in the 1850s onward through Foote and Tyndall experimenting with CO2. They must have been very pleased to have used the electricity you speak of!!

Extraordinarily asinine, risible rubbish of the first water! And an incredibly long bow!

Moreover, far less substantial or coherent than YK2! And a continual habitual predilection for this addled brain Author!? Who seems to own his own facts!?

As you were flying to London Brendon, did you perchance happen to note, the world, seen from altitude, is visibly round!?

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

@ant, Friday, 22 February 2019 9:54:21.

"...wet micro bursts .. rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago, and did not have the longevity of the ones being experienced on weekly basis around Earth now."

Look ant, you seem like a reasonable person, so why is it that you come out with the most silly statements like the one I've just quoted from you above?

Ant, every thunderstorm cell creates a microburst as they start dumping rain. Are you suggesting that thunderstorms were very rare events 50 years ago? Surely you can't be that naive. Or gullible. What have you been reading? It seems that you don't understand much about meteorology.

All aviators, pilots, have been well versed and trained about the dangers of flying close to thunderstorms because of microbursts for well over 50 years. They're part of basic aviation knowledge taught to all student pilots. They're very scary things if you are caught out trying to land an aircraft near one - usually about a radius of 5 miles, lasting for about 15 minutes, but can be greater. I know because I got caught out myself once. It was a very exciting few seconds but the story had a happy landing.

Microbursts are very serious and dangerous things for aircraft, especially for large heavy aircraft. Over those 50 years you're talking about there have been numerous large airliner crashes including fatalities. The physics are very interesting to talk about, but I'm going into it here.

Ant the point is this, microbursts are nothing new, their frequency is not increasing nor their intensity. This modern climate warrior jargon of "rain bomb" is very scary but something created for that purpose. In the olden days where I come from, the colloquial expression back then was "cloudburst" and they were just as common then as they are now. Ant I would respectfully suggest that you should be a bit more discretionary about evaluating alarmist claims of meteorological phenomenon. Don't believe everything you read. Objectively evaluate carefully.

The global climate change industry was estimated to be $1.5 trillion per year in 2013, and growing around 5 to 10 times faster than inflation.

It estimated the Paris promises would cost around 2% of global GDP per year by 2030 and achieve almost nothing in terms of reducing global temperatures if continued to the end of the century.

Huge cost for no benefit. Keeping people poor for nothing.

There are a lot of issues to discuss regarding climate change and how we will manage over time, but this article is filled with so many lies / errors that it sets the important discussions we need to have back 10 years. It would take hours to put together all the references contradicting those lies.

On the other hand I guess I don't need to do that, I can just use the technique the author uses. I just talked to a friend and he said most of the statements in this article are rubbish. Problem solved.

Peter Lang: Right on the money. If we, any of us believe in climate change!? And caused, at least for the most part, by record levels of CO2 now up in uncharted territory!?

Then the obvious answer would seem to be!? Stop burning fossil fuel to make power!?

But particularly, where it can be proven with established fact that. Nuclear power is safer, cleaner and vastly more affordable, as reliable, dispatchable, carbon-free power!

One could be forgiven for being completely bewildered by the fact, the geniuses running the country (down) haven't already tumbled to it? Or have they!?
Cheers, Alan B.

Very poorly researched article, with significant factual errors. For a start, it was Engie, not the Victorian government, that closed Hazelwood power station. Victoria's blackouts didn't extend to SA. And the storage capability of SA's Tesla Big Battery is in addition to its grid stability capacity. His comparison of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere certainly isn't "by volume" as CO2's atmospheric concentration is at 410ppm, and methane only 1.8ppm.

I could go on, because his reasoning errors are as prolific as his factual errors. But does anyone here actually want to know?

Alan B,

No informed person denies climate change is occurring. Climate change has been going on for 4.5 billion years on Earth. Always has, always will.

Human contribution is small. Furthermore, any warming we get this century will be beneficial not damaging. Efforts to curb global warming are massively damaging for two reasons: 1) the cost of the polices, 2) the loss of the benefit that would be gained by more global warming.

voxUnius

Rain bombs are something quite new, where a month or more of rain falls in a few hours, or days. Fifty years ago such events hardly happened, I was a young adult back then and do not remember continual extreme conditions being broadcast on the news.

An example of a film that had been periodically put out in relation to extreme weather events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5lS_s6bETw&t=19s

The film encompasses the period 5th -19th November 2018.

Contents:
00:13 The USA: The Camp Fire, Woolsey Fire & Winter Storm Avery
20:13 Kuwait: Flash floods
27:12 Jordan: Flash floods
29:08 Saudi Arabia: Floods
31:06 India: Tropical Cyclone Gaja
32:50 Indonesia: Tasikmalaya & Dompu floods
35:54 Vietnam: Tropical Storm Toraji
37:40 Thailand: Southern floods
38:11 Brazil: Rio landslide & Belo Horizonte flash flood
40:54 Turkey: Bodrum flash flood
42:30 Spain: Flash floods
45:24 Temperature Data

If you are not happy for the term "wet microburst", I'm happy to use the term "rain bomb". I had been told on this forum to use the term wet microburst instead of rain bomb quite a long time ago! Although, in the comment you are critical of, I used both terms. I don't happen to like the term "wet microburst" on the basis it is not as descriptive as "rain bomb".

A quote from Mr Google, the last sentence being the most appropriate:

"Microbursts occur during thunderstorms. A storm can cause rain clouds full of water droplets or hail to mix with patches of dry air. When that happens, the dry air sucks moisture from the wet air. ... A microburst may also bring rain with it, often called a “rain bomb,” but these are relatively rare."

But, worrying about strict terminology, does not make any difference, anthropogenic climate change is happening.

Well apparently the article is so full of errors that ericc can't even bring himself to mention even one. Aidan manages to list a few and then manages to get them wrong:

1. "it was Engie, not the Victorian government, that closed Hazelwood power station". That's mere playing semantics. The closure was fully supported by the state government and was hastened by government policy. The company made the only decision available to it due to government policy.

2. "Victoria's blackouts didn't extend to SA." Well since the author didn't say they did, I find it hard to call this an error. I wonder what other 'errors' the author 'made' due to Aidan's misreading of the text.

3. "His comparison of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere certainly isn't "by volume" as CO2's atmospheric concentration is at 410ppm, and methane only 1.8ppm." Well the author specifically said his comparisons were of GH gases ie CO2 accounts for 4% of GHG's not of the total atmosphere. Another error due to Aidan's misreading of the text.

So many errors made by the author. What a giggle.

But being a true believer in AGW means you don't have to be correct, just strident.

Just while I'm here and for the fun of it...

"rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago,"

Asking ant for evidence for his silly assertions is like asking a child to give back the lollipop but let's do it anyway. Any evidence for that ant?

"Denial of the climate has been about for about three decades..."

Yeah those people who deny we have a climate are the worst. Right up there with the sun deniers</sarc>.

A pretty good article. Y2K was a scam that came to an end because it could conclusively be shown to be wrong. But AGW and the ancillary renewable scams are different and will not come to an abrupt end. There's too much money involved. Even getting specific predictions and showing them to be wrong matters not at all. Twelve years ago we were told we had ten years to save the planet. That's obviously been shown to be wrong but they purveyors of the the one true faith merely move on and we are now told that we've got 12 years to save the planet. Hilariously many believe it.

Australia will continue down the path of closing fossil fuel plants and opening renewable plants...and costs to the consumer will continue to sky-rocket while jobs skedaddle. And the politicians and their like will continue to try to hide the cause and kick the solution down the road ie past the next election.

In that regard Snowy 2.0 has been the most successful power policy for decades. It won't do a damn bit of good in regards to supply or prices but it has mollified those who fret about their household costs since they've been convinced that our betters are doing something to resolve the cost problem. By the time it becomes obvious it was a feint, this and probably the next election will be in the rear-view mirror. It was designed to solve a political problem and its done it wonderfully well.

The article suggest we resolve the problem by getting rid of subsidies and letting the market work it out. But that won't happen. In an absolutely free market coal plants would pop-up all over but they'd be beset by lawfare and protest (see Adani) and thus no one will take the risk. At some point, when things become so dire that lies no longer work, the government will need to step in and build them themselves.

But don't expect to see that for at least a decade....or 12 years (grin).

Come on Ant.

In the 1960s people sailed up Townsville main street, Flinders St, to get away from the catastrophe the flood was causing in Auckland Creek.

In 1980, in a minor little cyclone, which did little damage, we got 26 inches of rain in 6 hours. Fortunately this was mostly on the islands, so no major flooding in cities.

All these clowns who have fallen for the global warming scam, are in keeping with that old saying, "none so dumb as those who don't want to see".

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20014
net zero immigration, no tax or welfare benefits after second child

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
The cornerstone of the "no such thing as man made global warming" argument is that scientists are rapacious bastards and coal, oil and gas corporations are run by innocent shopkeepers simply trying to scrape together a crust of bread for their needy families.

next the warmist will be arrogant enough to think they can control the suns temperature.

Thank you mhaze for saving me the trouble of dealing with Aidan's misinformation.
On the subject of coal, the Andrew's government has been hostile for years to Latrobe Valley power generators using brown coal, despite their production of the cheapest electricity, and contributions to regional employment. This hostility culminated in the tripling of Victoria's royalty on brown coal in 2016.
The whole coal-fired industry (black and brown) is destined to close under current policies. This is being caused by subsidies for renewable energy, preference given to renewable energy in national market regulations, and factors relating to the age of plants. In addition, governments won't allow new coal fired stations to be built.

The warmist and pollies have to lie about the massive rise in electricity due to the renewables scam because they know that the truth would see them dammed at the polls. The average young getup clown is certainly clueless.

mhaze

You really ought to read more science.

It is not until the 1970s that scientists working for Exxon, Shell, and those contracted to the American Petroleum Institute were talking about extreme weather for the future, caused through burning of fossil fuels. Naturally prior to that there had been occasional bad weather events.
In the past I've provided many references, because you dispute them doesn't make them wrong.
You make lots of statements today without a shred of evidence .. references?

Even in the mid 1960s reports were being produced warning of the problems created by fossil fuels, causing damage to climate creating more extreme events.

http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-change-evidence/presidents-report-atmospher-carbon-dioxide/

A reference of a report furnished for Exxon management in 1982.

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/

If you look at Figure 3 of the report you will notice it is too close for comfort to what was experienced when CO2 levels edged over 400ppm.

A 1988 report from Shell:

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

There are more reports showing how fossil fuel companies were aware of the impact of their products. These reports had basically been produced before agencies such as Heartlands were paid by fossil fuel companies to undermine the science.

mhaze, please supply documentation and show how the 3 quite long reports are wrong. Please show where Figure 3 of the Exxon report is wrong.

Your commentary is nothing more than sophistry without any citations to back you up.

even dr gooogle will tell you ant that every generation has experienced 'extreme' weather events. Does not mean they fit your very flawed narrative no matter how much pseudo science you produce. Facts are facts and truth is truth.

mhaze,
Your comprehension, both of the original article and of the errors I mentioned, is extremely poor. Looking at your objections:
1. Although shutting down Hazelwood had previously been part of (Victorian and Federal) government policy, that all came to nothing. Ultimately Engie made a commercial decision to close it because it was inefficient and unsafe.

2. Brendan's article claimed:
: It was excess power from other states (as well restrictions on big power users)
: that minimised recent blackouts in Victoria and South Australia.
He falsely implied that there were recent blackouts in SA (as well as Victoria) due to insufficient supply.

3. The misreading is on your part, not mine.
> Well the author specifically said his comparisons were of GH gases
Of course!
> ie CO2 accounts for 4% of GHG's not of the total atmosphere.
DUH!

My point was that by volume, there's a lot more than one order of magnitude more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane. So at best he'd confused volume and the proportion of radiative forcing they were responsible for; at worst he was simply spouting garbage.

Beware of the DRAGON.

All societies create a fictional dragon that must be feared.
Now they tell us "If you give us money, we can slay the dragon".

What I want to know is whether or not the sub-humans who lived prior to the last ice age passed a collection plate around to deal with the climate change issue.

If they did it didn't make a whole lot of difference.

ant claimed that ..."rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago,". I asked for evidence. In response we get a long post that doesn't even mention rain bombs let alone offer up even a passing resemblance to evidence.

This is standard for ant - make silly unsupported assertions and when bounced on it, immediately move to change the subject with different silly unsupported assertions.

Now he's back on the Exxon papers. By way of background, as clueless as he is, even he was embarrassed over his errors as regards Exxon papers and temporarily left the group.

Now he somehow thinks some new Exxon papers are important for reasons that make no sense except in the clueless mind that is ant.

These are papers that say things like...."Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainty regarding the'overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the role of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. It should also allow time to better define the effect of carbon dioxide and other infrared absorbing gases on surface climate. Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainty would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the worlds economies and societies."

That seems a perfect reasonable and balanced view for the 1980s and even now. Quiet why ant feels it leaves Exxon exposed to criticism is something only ant can explain.

He's also rather transfixed by so-called Figure 3. Why is unclear. It shows a best guess as to the increase in CO2 and temperatures up to 2080. It also shows that Exxon, like the alarmist scientists, significantly over-estimated the increase in each up to 2020. This is just another example of people being overly alarmist about the issue. Why ant thinks that helps his case is unknowable.

Aidan,

1. "Ultimately Engie made a commercial decision to close it because it was inefficient and unsafe." Yes but a commercial decision based on government bias against the station. You might not agree with the author's interpretation of the causes of the closure but that doesn't make those interpretations an error. The author's views are perfectly defensible.

2. "He falsely implied that there were recent blackouts in SA"
Oh so now the author is IMPLYING things that you think are wrong. He writes things that are right but you read things into it that are wrong and then call that an error. O'kaaaay!

3. The author specifically said what his percentages refer to. You misunderstood that and now claim that your misunderstanding means the author was wrong. Again its fine to argue that his numbers may mislead the unwary (such as yourself) but that doesn't make it an error.

Aidan, I hope you're sitting down when you read this...just because you don't agree with someone's interpretation of events or use of numbers doesn't mean they're erroneous.

To put a less flattering light on it, you didn't like the conclusions the author reached and wanted to dismiss them based on supposed error, but had to effectively make up the errors.

Hasbeen/runner

Have I ever written that there were no major extreme events in the past?
It’s a bit like the comment from Peter Lang, where he stated that the climate has always changed, the film referenced below about ice cores featuring Richard Alley says exactly that. Richard Alley explains in the film that very major volcanic eruptions and other extreme events show up where expected on the time line displayed by the ice cores. Richard Alley explained also that the very features that deniers bring up as possibilities other than anthropogenic climate change have all been considered.

Richard Alley in the film comments on how WUWT completely misrepresented a study he had published, he is not complimentary to say the least!

After 8 minutes into the video Richard Alley talks about how the warmth take up by CO2 needs to be considered in how missile route is tweaked to take into account that warmth.
By the way, Richard Alley does not subscribe to Green politics, he states he is a Republican, elsewhere.

http://youtu.be/c90nab5i-TQ

Back modelling, meaning using objective data from the past and looking for features which influence climate also uphold anthropogenic climate change.

mhaze, as per usual is quite aggressive, aggression is used to hide lack of any evidence based arguments. Where are the references?

I provided 3 references created before climate change denial began in earnest, the graph put out by Exxon scientists is quite accurate for current time. mhaze has shown an inability to read graphs. No comments about the Shell reference?
Extracts from a further report about what was known about fossil fuels produced by Stanford Research Institute scientists for the American Institute of Petroleum in 1968:

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

Coal-fired power, how good is it?

Well for starters the energy coefficient is 20%. Because as much as 80% of the energy is consumed spinning things. Another 75% in transmission/distribution losses.

To effectively arrive at your metre box, with just 5% of the generated energy. Even so, you cover 100% of that cost/whatever price gouged profit the provider/government of the add. Plus a surety of supply, tariff.

Could this be done better, minus most of the in-house loses spinning things, losses due to resistant factors?

Yes and mandatory if we're to keep using and exporting coal!? Or eliminate most of the CO2 component of coal-fired power as well as all the friction and inertia losses.

Flameless heat will be required to effectively cook out all the methane from the coal. This methane will need to be piped directly to the end user. To power up, methane consuming, onsite ceramic fuel cells, where the exhaust product? Mostly pristine water vapour.

The energy coefficient of this combination being 80%.

75% more at your metre box, than the current delivery system. Moreover, all wires transformers/things spinning are eliminated. Solid state technology eliminates wear and tear failures/maintenance etc-etc.

Pipes buried below ground are less subject to the vagaries of climate and wildfires.

Meaning such a system would remain uninterrupted by fire, tempest and flood! Be largely carbon fee and more profitable over time than current practice. And flick of a switch reliable, 24/7!

Some of the gas can be stored in simple bladders so solar thermal could be considered as the flameless heat source?

We currently have around 700 years worth of coal. Could extend by centuries as well as, make the gas available as a general use CO2 (40%) reducing, transitional transport fuel! Thereby making an annual 26 billion available for other purposes.

A national gas grid, rapid rail, etc-etc.

In any event, the only coal-fired scenario able to get finance after corporate due diligence! Should've happened over a decade ago, when it would've cost half!
Alan B.

Alan, "UK Climate Change Chief Demands Ban on Domestic Gas", so not too sure your gas idea is a good one. Of course the fact that the same Lord Deben has extensive interests in windmills might be more responsible than his greeny ideals on this.

Ant what would you be babbling on about if we had a 26 year drought? I reckon it would be proof that carbon based energy was at fault to you.

Just what do you think was producing all that CO2, when there was a 26 year drought in Queensland, so bad that it produced no sediment deposits, [none at all] just before Captain Cook came cruising by. May be the aboriginals had SUVs we don't know about.

Or how about the federation drought, when the waters of the Darling became so toxic that they could not be drunk by man or beast.

I could go on but trying to convince a fool is a fools game.

The man (?) who wrote..."You really ought to read more science" complains about aggression! Oh dear.

ant,

Providing links to this or that is fine and good and I do it more than most. But all you've done, and what you do more often than not, is link to something without the slightest effort to show its relevance.

What, pray tell, do you think the Exxon papers you've linked to tell us about climate scepticism then or now? You put up some links to great screeds of data and demand I disprove it. But there's no need to disprove it. I skimmed it and agree, in the main, with what I read.

I quoted from one of the papers to show why I agree with it. You, who raised the issue, haven't offered any quotes or even commentary as to why the papers prove anything of use to your assertions.

Its the same as the last time who went so disastrously down this path where you simply asserted that the Exxon papers proved the skeptics wrong and then assiduously refused to show how.

As to the graph which you think I've misread, while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020, it shows a prediction they will rise by about 1c by 2020 ie about 50% more than the actual. Please explain why you think I've got that wrong.

Just throwing out links to this or that means nothing. Explain why you think your links say anything meaningful.

Whew, seems to be a lot of waffle on this thread.
First one; Y2K was a fraud.
NO IT WASN'T !
Mhaze and others must have lived a protected life.
Many programmers earned a lot of money checking and testing programs.
Many programs had been written, say 20 years earlier, and then updated
from time to time. A friend of mine made a lot of money on it.
For fifty years or more it was customary to only use two digits for year.
If you input 00 for 2000 the program would blow up after a sort.
Programs had to be altered to check that four digits were input.
I had to alter a couple of minor programs that I wrote, only took an hour.

Another waffle is that various wild weather occurs much more frequently now.
That is because there is now more ability to know it is happening
somewhere or other and it can now be reported more widely.
Automatic wx reporting is now common.
Ant's list of events proves my point.

Alan B said;
Well for starters the energy coefficient is 20%. Because as much as
80% of the energy is consumed spinning things.

Oh come on Alan once up to speed the m/c only needs a little nudge
to keep it spinning. More force input then goes out on the wires !
Your m/cs must have had corrugated iron for bearings !

That will do for now, but no one has answered my question,
"What is the multiplication factor for the number of wind turbines
to get 100% supply ?"
I have seen that the factor is 12 !"

Bazz,

Y2K wasn't a scam but the scare around it most certainly was. Remember at the time that people talked about planes falling out of the sky or morons like Helen Caldicott talking about nuclear plants blowing up. It was all bogus but some made millions from it.

As you say the problem was that, in the early stages of computers, data storage was expensive and precious so saving space by not recording the year was valuable. But by the early 1990s that was no longer the case so the newer computers started storing the century and/or storing the date as a number eg Excel records the date as the number of days from 01/01/1900.

Therefore any computer and software from around 1995 was always going to be fine. But the scammers convinced millions that they were in trouble if they didn't cough up to solve a problem that didn't exist. One group I know created a programme called Utility 10000 that, they said, checked and fixed all 10000 potential problems in your system. In reality it displayed the number 10000 on screen and counted backwards to 1. It did nothing else because the programmers were able to ascertain within 5 minutes if there was a problem. They made over $300k from it.

Its true that companies with old systems had a problem. But it was a problem that was easily resolved either by simply upgrading the data storage protocols to include the century or via software changes. eg add 36525 (the number of days in a century) to the stored date. I did work for a few Russian companies in those days and one was quoted $US750,000 to fix a problem that I fixed in one hour using the above method.

I'm personally know that GJColes employed over 60 people and a budget of $50 million to fix a problem that their Y2K task-force manager agreed didn't exist.

Before the renewable energy scam, Y2K was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated. And the scammers walked away scot-free and rich.

mhaze

You ask about the relevance of the references I have provided, it is my way of showing just how wrong the article is. The science was quite solid prior to the groups such as Heartlands being resourced by fossil fuel companies to undermine the science. Heartlands et al have done a magnificent job of of undermining the science and fooling many people. We are now paying the cost of ignoring the science.

mhaze, you are not able to debunk those articles with any kind of evidence, so just make meaningless statements. You showed you were not able to comprehend the straight forward graph I highlighted .. so why do you bother

mhaze
This might help you in relation to Figure 3, when CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C. So I'm not sure how you came up with .."while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020." The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is just under 410ppm.
There are spikes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere due to seasonal variations, and some of those spikes have exceeded 410ppm. On an annual basis the increase in CO2 is 2-3ppm.

In relation to aggression, I did not complain, it is an observation that people who employ aggression are trying to hide a lack of an evidence based argument. So use it as much as you like. You did not understand the comment I made, I welcome aggressive comments except when they are directed at scientists unaware of this site. Aggressive comments provide a red flag to any casual reader.

Whatever happened to the denier datum year of 1998, deniers no longer use it?

ant,

You wrote:

"You ask about the relevance of the references I have provided, it is my way of showing just how wrong the article is."

But the articles you posted are entirely consistent with the article in this thread. For example the Shell articles show that there is expected to be a mild warming over the next 60 years or so. Refer to the quote from the Shell articles I posted earlier. Likewise the thread article says "There is no issue in accepting the reality of climate change, including warming and reduced rainfall in southern Australia in recent decades." The thread article accepts that there's some man-made warming and your Shell articles do likewise. They are largely consistent. So how these articles are "showing just how wrong the article is" is something only you can see.

I say I largely agree with the Shell analysis and you reply that "you are not able to debunk those articles with any kind of evidence". Somehow you think that me not debunking a position I largely agree with is significant. Go figure.

And speaking of figure, let's go to Fig3:

You say "So I'm not sure how you came up with .."while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020." I was comparing the figure 3 predicted increase of 1c to the actual increase of 0.7c up to 2020. Seems clear to me. It shows that the Fig3 prediction overstated the actual increase by about 50%.

But, and I'm almost embarrassed to have to point this out, its at this point that it all falls apart for you. You wrote "This might help you in relation to Figure 3, when CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C."

ant, that's utterly wrong. The predictions in the graph are that when Co2 levels reach 380ppm (at around 2000AD) temperatures increase by 0.4c NOT 0.8c.

I couldn't work out how you got that so wrong and then I realised that you utterly misunderstood the graph. Then I realised that 380ppm and 0.8c are on the same horizontal line. But they are at different periods. The 380ppm occurs around 2000 but the 0.8c temperature increase occurs some time after 2010.

You've utterly misunderstood the graph. Its about change over time. The CO2 level is read from the left Y-axis and temperatures from the right Y-axis. Time is across the X-axis.

If you are unable to understand a simple graph, you're going to struggle to understand climate science - and that explains a lot.
One doesn't need to be a math wiz to understand this stuff but being utterly innumerate is a problem.

So I'll leave you unmolested but please be more careful about accusing others of misunderstanding this or that issue when in fact your understanding is highly suspect.

Once a turbine is up to speed it doesn't take much to keep is spinning. But these turbines are not freewheeling are they!? And the reason why their energy coefficient is just 20%

Up against the massive resistance of millions of miles of wires and sudden load imbalance as trains etc, start and stop, arc furnaces kick in an every air conditioner in the country is switched on and refrigerators have to work overtime, keeping their contents cool.

In any event, was just seeing if there was a mostly CO2 free (banker-friendly) PRAGMATIC method of using coal that wouldn't be shot down in flames by corporate due diligence, Dummies! Eliminate known and proven inertia and transmission/distribution losses, Dummies.

Folk will ask if you need solar thermal, why bother with coal? Because Dummies, you'd still need to spin stuff and send electric current down millions of miles of wires!

Not concerned, how we generate power!

Just the quadrupled cost of our 18th-century model, massively mechanical, with moving parts, corrosion and the huge maintenance bill/short life span, wastage/extreme vulnerability that is part of the current system.

Fact #1/ Absolutely no inertia in cooking gas from coal.

#2/ No transmission resistance, no need for, extremely expensive stage down transformers, at distribution end, Dummies!


#3/ Lighter than air methane can almost push itself up the line especially if the upward slopes and expansion chambers are used intelligently!

#4/ methane like hydrogen is a reductant that enables the life of well-sealed pipes to endure for possibly centuries, with minimal maintenance.

#5/ The energy coefficient of the methane/ceramic cell coefficient is 80%!

That's four times better than current coal-fired power, Dummies and therefore, quadruples the current life expectancy of our know thermal coal reserves, as well as quartering current power prices, Dummies.

Just making the business case for doing it differently, Dummies! Moreover, don't give a rat's for the absolutely absurd, asinine views of Lord whatsisname!

Bet my house I've shovelled and tested more coal and installed more transformers than that ignoramus personified, anti-gas, gasbag.
Alan B.

mhaze

The graph shows when CO2 has been measured to be 340ppm, then the expected temperature increase is 0.4C. The 0.4C increase related to beginning of the 21 century. When I went to school graphs were read using horizontal and vertical lines

At 380ppm CO2, the temperature will increase to 0.8C according to the graph.

But, I suspect you know that, but it is something difficult to acknowledge.

mhaze, what is the current increase in temperature over pre-Industrial times?

Alan B, if what you were saying is correct then the turbines in the
power house would be red hot from the heat.
There would be no point in building them and we would not have any electricity.

ant,

You surely can't be this innumerate. I feel you must surely now be in the phase where you know you've screwed up and are now trying to avoiding admitting it by making a fool of yourself.

But on the off chance that you really don't get it, see if you can follow this exercise.

According to the graph:

when approximately will CO2 levels reach 340ppm
when approximately will CO2 levels reach 380ppm
when approximately will temperatures reach 0.4c above baseline
when approximately will temperatures reach 0.8c above baseline

Answer those questions correctly and perhaps you'll understand why you've got all this so very very wrong.

THEN, if all else fails and you still can't nut it out, go check Table 4 on page 31 of the report.

THEN show us that you retain a modicum of honour by coming back and admitting you got it all wrong.

mhaze

I have asked a Maths teacher to check my interpretation of the graph, and she says your wrong.
The graph was about a projection of CO2 levels into the future with the expected increase in temperature over pre-Industrial times. If you read science you would understand that to be true. Mauna Loa maintains constant updates of CO2 emissions, we obtain temperature updates periodically, it is another way of showing how you are wrong without using the graph reference.
Scientists were right in their projection of temperature increase almost 40 years ago.

You haven't answered my question about how the 1998 datum isn't used any more by deniers, I'm not surprised. I have asked that question a number of times elsewhere. The answer is an embarrassment for deniers.
Also, you have not answered my question about what the current increase in temperature has been since the pre-Industrial period.

Your insistence of trying to down grade temperature, places you in the denier group of anthropogenic climate change.

mhaze,
1. No, the commercial decision to close Hazelwood was not based on government bias. It was based on the cost of fixing the safety problems.

2. Considering people have been successfully sued for libel by implication, I don't think your objection is valid. He made a claim that was misleading.

3. I concur that "The author specifically said what his percentages refer to."*
And he specifically got his figures WRONG!

Considering their relative proportions in the atmosphere, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the figures he supplied to be what he says they were. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

* Technically he only said what one of his percentages referred to; it was implied the other two referred to the same thing.

Hey ant.

One graph you should be looking at is the famous "hockey stick" graph invented by that star of HIGW, Professor Michael Manne. It clearly shows how the industrial revolution was the cause of HIGW because that is when global temperatures supposedly began to rise.

The only problem with the professor's graph was that even a dumb electrician like me knows about the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period (when global temps.were 2 degrees hotter than today) , The Little Ice Age, and other natural variables in global climate which Manne conveniently forgot to put on his graph.

Naturally, climate scientist Tim Ball pointed out that Manne's graph was pure nonsense and got sued by Michael Manne. They went to court and Tim Ball won. In a court of law, one of the main luminaries of HIGW can not convince a judge or a jury that his "research" is valid.

But it is easy to understand why HIGW advocates like Manne are so desperate to shut up respected critics of HIGW like Tim Ball. Manne came from nowhere to a respected position of power and prestige by simply fabricating evidence he knew the PC brigade wanted to hear. He is the Jussie Smollet of the socialists who so desperately want to blame a supposed global catastrophe on free market capitalism. Like Smollet and his fabricated tale of racial and homophobic attack by Trump supporters, he is telling them what they want to hear. And they are lapping it up like the media did with Smollet, without bothering to see if it is true.

Look ant, like Smollett's hoax,this whole Human Induced Global Warming hoax is starting to unravel. It is time for you to figure out that you have been had. You got played like a fish by socialists who knew how to appeal to your youthful idealism. Now, that may be a particularly unpleasant piece of crow to eat, but the sooner you tuck in, the sooner you can go back to deluding yourself that you are a "progressive" individual of high intelligence and unmatched virtue

It is science that informs people about climate change
ant,
Assuming of course that those scientists are competent & have integrity.

Lego

Sorry, you are wrong, there has been tampering of graphs, quite a number of studies display the hockey stick, you have been misled through fraudulent tampering of graphs.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england/

Fredrik Ljungqvist, has also had a paper published on past temperature. A film displays a graph purported to be from Fredrik Ljungqvist shown by deniers, and has a photo of the actual published paper. The graph has been fraudulently tampered with by deniers.
Above, I gave a referral about ice cores, the work of Dr Alley it, was misrepresented by deniers trying to suggest his work supported denier views.

The film ..Medieval Warm Period- Fact Versus Fiction, displays how the Ljungqvist graph was distorted:

http://youtu.be/CY4Yecsx_-s

There had been a previous article where Dr Ball was mentioned, I made a comment at Tuesday, 19 February 2019 9:57:36 AM in relation to: Global warming won't make it colder!

My comment:

Harris quotes Dr Ball as saying "Dr. Ball explains that the real cause of the severe cold outbreaks in the US is a wavy jet stream." The hyperlink in the article to Dr Ball's comments does not work.

Dr Ball states extremely cold conditions are going to be experienced in the Northern Hemisphere for a lengthy period. Global temperature takes into account Regional variations world wide, so while one area might be extremely cold others are extremely warm. It is the aggregate that counts.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20162&page=6

On the same onlineopinion I gave a reference to Professor Dan Britt a little further down who covers ice ages in a lot of detail. The nub of what he says in the film is that we should be going into an ice age, except anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet. Oceans warming is illustrative of such warming taking place. Also, permafrost thawing creating ponds, lakes and swamps flies in the face of Earth cooling. Tundra areas are greening.

Lego go to sources of information where possible, see what scientists are actually stating or writing, research is often different to how it is expressed by deniers.

individual

Are you suggesting that Fourier (1820s), Foote and Tyndall (1850 >), and scientists employed by fossil fuel corporations before anthropogenic climate change denial began in earnest, were without integrity? Since the 1980s the sophistication of measuring devices have improved; and so, current climate scientists are building on the foundation of prior science.
James Hansen early in his career came up with three projections of how a warming planet might fair, he gained much criticism from Michaels and McIntyre in relation to two of his projects. But, his third project was quite accurate .. integrity on the part of McIntyre and Michaels? They did not acknowledge his third projection.

Do marine scientists observing changes in habitat and fish species, lack integrity? Fish species have been moving North and South from original habitats depending on Hemisphere, due to warming waters. Kelp forests have been lost, coral reefs world wide are in decline. So what is it about marine scientists that they do not display integrity? Their work supports anthropogenic climate science.

Archeologists working on Alaska's coastline have had to work extremely quickly due to erosion of their dig sites. Many artefacts would be lost if they worked in their normal way .. lack of integrity? The question arises why the erosion?

Ant finds some report that he asserts means something although quite what he never makes clear. The report includes a graph he asserts predicts that when CO2 levels reach 380ppm temperatures will rise by 0.8c

That is patently wrong but when I point it out ant asserts that I'm misreading the graph

Astonished at his innumeracy I try to set him straight. Finally I find with the same report a table that the graph is based on. Said table totally concurs with what I've been telling the dill.

I explain it to him again and show him the conclusive evidence of his utter misunderstanding of the issue. I invite him to display some modicum of honour by acknowledging his error

And what does he do? Ignores the new evidence, creates a fictions math teacher who he says agrees with his idiocy and maintains that his interpretation of the data is correct even though the actual data says otherwise

The man has zero honour, zero honesty and zero self respect.

And I'm done with him. One can only spend so much effort trying to educate fools before realising they are perfectly comfortable with their ignorance.

'And I'm done with him. One can only spend so much effort trying to educate fools before realising they are perfectly comfortable with their ignorance.'

yep mhaze that is exactly why the dishonest charlatans have won. I am not having a go at you but the old saying that you tell lies often enough especially when they fit the narrative and people give up on the truth. I can understand the gullible pushing this gw c-ap but have little respect for the intelligent who have caved in. Thank God for Donald Trump who has boldly stood his ground and stopped the US from being robbed by these charlatans.

Ant, Climatologist Tim Ball proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, that his own data and graph displaying climate variability was accurate, and that Michael Manne's hockey stick was a complete fabrication drawn from a deliberate misrepresentation of the available data. I have seen the two graphs and they bear no relation to one another at all. Now, you are claiming that New Scientist magazine supports Manne, because it has published a new hockey stick graph which is practically identical to Manne's.

You are saying that Frederick Ljungqvist had data supporting Mann's position. Too bad he did not go to court to help Manne. Maybe he did not want his own "evidence" picked apart by a sharp lawyer in front of a jury. It was noted during the trial, that Manne was on his own and lacked supporters. Too many PC frocked climate "scientists" who had their snouts and front trotters in the public research fund trough, knew that the jig was up. And it better to just let Manne hoist himself on his own hockey stick than make fools of themselves by submitting their own data in court, and having that data picked over too.

Then you say that another professor named Dan Britt supports HIGW. Whoopee. Did he give evidence to support Manne in court? Or, was he hiding under bed with the rest of the "97%" of climate scientists who supposedly support HIGW, but let Manne do the dirty work of shutting up a very credible scientific opponent like Ball? It is a sad time for science when scientific validity is being decided by juries, and all because the fabricators who knew what the PC establishment wanted, and knew how to please them, are trying to shut up the real scientists by threatening them with court action. Manne lost against Ball and he will lose against Mark Steyn as well.

Time for even the ants to flee the sinking HIGW ship.

'Time for even the ants to flee the sinking HIGW ship.'

In a day ruled by emotion and narrative I doubt it Lego.

mhaze

You are a comedian. Page 6 of the Exxon report describes exactly what I had been saying about Figure 3.
From the Exxon '82 report, which is hardly ambiguous .. "Figure 3 summarises the projected growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations based on the Exxon 21st Century Study High-Growth scenario. As well as an estimate of the average global temperature increase which might then occur above the current temperature."

Thank you for your abuse, you clearly have nothing sensible to say.

As stated, I had a Maths teacher look at the graph.

The Reports scientists were putting out before denier-scam, are uncomfortable for deniers.

You still haven't commented about 1998 either, as requested..

You have not provided any references to back you up which is a telling sign you have nothing to offer.

Lego

Can you produce a reference about Dr Mann having lost a Court case, it sounds like false news. Dr Mann's work was checked by a science peak body after complaints. It is hardly surprising complaints were made on the basis of denier views being shown to be wrong. Do you not understand that sediments, rock composition, coral, tree rings, ice cores provide data about what had happened at a particular time in the past. Did you watch the short video about the Medieval era I've provided?

Research scientists, whether studying medicial matters, climate, chemistry, physics or anything else are paid professional salaries; but, they need funds to progress their research. We would not be able to communicate online without research having being completed in the past.

Conspiracy theories might seem right, but on further appraisal are shown to be wrong.

He said, they said someone said;
All very complicated. Herewith a simple question.

Why is it that the temperature rises then the CO2 rises ?

That question gets asked but never answered.

Struth Ant. The way you go on, you present yourself as some sort of HIGW expert, with the facts at your finger tips. And you did not even know that Michael Manne shot himself in the foot by suing climate scientist Tim Ball for libel, when Ball said that Manne's Hockey stick graph was an easily refuted fraud?

Manne probably thought that the mere threat of a hideously expensive lawsuit would shut Tim Ball up. But after 8 years of delay, Manne got his court case and Ball won it easily. Here is Tim Ball speaking about his victory over Michael Manne's "rigorously peer reviewed work" which he was very reluctant to share with the Ball's defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug

And for your edification, Ball also sued columnist Mark Steyn, when Steyn wrote a 77 word blog saying pretty much the same thing as Tim Ball. Here is Mark Steyn using his world famous humour and incisive wit to tell an entire meeting hall full of real scientists about his coming court case with Manne. When you can laugh at your opponents, you know you have them beat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

You may sincerely believe in HIGW. And the reason for that is, I strongly suspect, because you have been conditioned believe that supporting such a cause is what intelligent, virtuous, and far seeing young progressives should support. So you do just that, because you aspire to join those who portray themselves as some sort of brahmin caste of mensa progressives.

But if you have any intelligence at all, then lock yourself in a dark room, turn on your critical analysis circuit, and consider this. Any ideology which uses force and intimidation to shut up it's critics is not worth a brass razoo. The climate skeptics are winning because we are on the side of science, and our people are the really smart guys. You know, the ones you aspire to associate yourself with? The crowd you are presently supporting are the humourless, pontificating, writ throwing, social climbing socialists, more concerned about their grants, stipends, social position, and virtue signaling, than telling the truth.

Lego

Regarding your videos.

Whether Ball won a case against Dr Mann makes no difference to a science that has been about almost 200 years.

Heartlands is a purveyor of pseudo science.

So people trained in medical science processing epidemiological data related to climate change, do not practice science as per your suggestion.
Between 2013 and 2014, Powell et al studied 24,000 papers from peer reviewed journals. Literally only a handful were published by skeptical scientists. Not much data is being created by skeptical scientists in other words.

Katharine Hayhoe et al reviewed 38 studies created by skeptical scientists, they found that they could not replicate the science presented by skeptical scientists.

Ideology is not part of science; from comments written here, those criticising science are very conservative in their political views I would venture.
As stated much of what deniers rely on amounts to misrepresentation even fraud. I have given examples of misreprentation and fraud. The examples relating to Dr Hanson, Dr Alley, and Fredrik Ljungqvist.

Have noticed how few references are provided by climate science deniers, it is for a good reason.

Bazz

WUWT is a pseudo science site, Bazz. Anthony Watts is not a scientist. It had been WUWT that had misrepresented Dr Alley.
I understand that WUWT is the site that first commented on temperature rises then the CO2 rises. Check it yourself, go to science, it isn't true.

The fact that a respected climate scientist, who has been telling anybody who will listen for 30 years, that HIGW is a hoax, and who has been sued by no less than three IPCC luminaries for endangering their cushy little jobs, won the very court case insisted upon by the IPCC's chief propagandist, is extremely important. So much for Michael Manne's "rigorously peer reviewed research." The "24,000 scientific papers published in scientific journals" which Manne must have used to support his case did not seem to impress the jury.

Next, you are trying the old "baffle them with bullsheet" ploy, by submitting unverifiable data published by a woman who said that "she could not replicate the science published by the "handful" of skeptical scientists." Well, Tim Ball still won the court case because his evidence was obviously a lot more credible than the Gaia worshipping, government research funds seeking, and career protecting alarmists.

And let us get something absolutely clear. People who oppose the HIGW hoax are not "deniers." Nobody denies that climate changes. Nobody denies that atmospheric CO2 emissions are increasing, or that it could cause rises in global temperatures. The real question has always been if the human component of CO2 rise is so significant that it endangers human civilization, to the extent that Western civilization must bankrupt our economies to try and prevent it.

The first IPCC's "Working Group Report 1." stated that climate research and modeling was "chaotic and non linear" and that climate was "impossible to predict." For the last twenty years it has been predicating climate catastrophe. Now, it's latest report plainly states that climate is changing "largely as a result of human activities." THAT is the problem. Prove it.

Manne and the IPCC can't prove it and they know it. But they have plenty of useful fools like your good self who so desperately want to believe it is true. All we have to do to prevent catastrophe and create Utopia is to stop eating meat, give all our wealth to the poor, become poor ourselves, create a World Government, and embrace socialism

Lego

A friend lent me a copy of the IPA book that Steyne talked about in the film you referenced, the book provides many recycled arguments that have been debunked.
Science is about continually exploring and testing a hypothesis, it must be able to be replicated.
Any scientist able to knock over the science behind anthropogenic climate change would have a huge profile.

What is interesting is that a number of you have provided sophistry without backing up points of view with any kind of evidence. Lego, you have been the only one to have made an attempt to provide support for what you have written. Science is based on evidence not opinion, the other factor is that science is more than finding information that upholds your view point. To not support anthropogenic climate science is an indication of repudiating Physics and Chemistry.

Over a number of years I’ve gone down many rabbit burrows presented by the references provided by deniers. It is from such research that I’ve found that it science is misrepresented, misinterpreted, and in some cases fraudulently changed to suit the denier point. There are many such cases of misrepresentation.

People are deniers when they deny anthropogenic climate change.
Modelling has come a long way since the first IPCC Report, grids used were around 200 square kilometers, now with greater computer power they can be down to 10 square kilometers. As with science generally, computer technology has come a long way. But, modelling is only a part of climate science, observation and using sophisticated technology which provides data.

Suggesting world government wanting a world government and pushing socialism is just an ideological point of view; ironically what is happening Internationally shows how wrong it is. Think of Brexit in Europe, a few other countries apart from Britain have talked about leaving the European Alliance. There is much antagonism between the USA, Russia, and China. The Middle East is a dogs breakfast, so a world government being created is a bit of a farce. It has absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change.

Continued

Continued

Lego

It appears that projection is going on, I’m accused of presenting ideological points; yet, you have been the one bringing up fanciful ideas such as world government.

In 2000 an Inquiry was set up by Congress to investigate “hockey stick” complaints.

http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2

By that time other studies had been completed using different criteria to reconstruct past temperature from proxies.
The Report basically vindicates the work of Dr Mann.

The other feature is that it vindicates my comments in relation to Figure 3 of the Exxon Report.

You do not seem to know what “et al” means, Lego, when you make comments about Katharine Hayhoe, it means “and others”. I was a bit lazy in not producing a reference.

From Abstract:

“A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Watch the Watts film embeded in article.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming

Poor poor ant continues to assert that his hilarious misreading of an inconsequential graph is correct, which is part of the reason he thinks, hilariously, that the graph is important.

His innumeracy is such that he reads the graph across the page and utterly misunderstands it. To try to convince someone (I think himself) that he knows what he's talking about he conjures up a fictitious math teacher who he says supports his utter misreading of the graph.

Here's the result:

ant says "when CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C." This he deduces from the graph.

ant's fictitious maths teacher then supports his view.

But the people who actually created the graph and put together the actual data upon which the graph is based predict that in the year 2000 CO2 levels will be 374ppm and the increase in temperatures will be 0.45c

At the very beginning, just eye-balling the graph I'd told poor innumerate ant that "The predictions in the graph are that when Co2 levels reach 380ppm (at around 2000AD) temperatures increase by 0.4c NOT 0.8c."

Again where is this more exact data? Its on page 31 of the report - Table 4. I've pointed ant to it but he, as usual, won't address or even read anything that doesn't suit his views or in this case, show he's utterly clueless.

So ant, remember Table 4. Every time you think you understand a climate issue think about Table 4 as a symbol of the fact that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. Also as a symbol of the fact that you refuse to view, let alone consider, anything that shows you that your views are wrong.

Table 4, ant, Table 4.

the gw 'scientist' are obviously paid not to look at facts that reveal their deceit.

Aidan,

" concur that "The author specifically said what his percentages refer to."*
And he specifically got his figures WRONG!"

Well no he didn't. Indeed his numbers are uncontroversial and oft used.

Greenhouse gases, in combination, make up about 1% of the total atmosphere. CO2 makes up 0.04% (c. 400ppm) of the total atmosphere. Therefore CO2 makes up 4% of all GHGs. Let me know if the math eludes you and I'll go more slowly.

So, the numbers used by the author are correct.

I note that you originally said they were wrong because you misunderstood the text and that now, having been set right, you still can't bring yourself to say that the author was correct.

The implication in all of this is that you made up errors in the article because you didn't want it to be true but couldn't work out how to logically argue against it.

And ,since ,apparently, implications are now actionable, the implication I've drawn from your various incorrect assertions about errors in the article is valid ie that you just made them up.

QED

what is it about marine scientists that they do not display integrity?
ant,
I have met some !

regarding Fourier (1820s), Foote and Tyndall (1850 > all I can say is that I jumped the gun as I din't realise their period. Still, they may or may not have been the forefathers of those who are exploiting the present hysteria !
Humans are contributing much too heavily to pollution which changes the cycle of climate change. Climate change is not caused by humans but, there's fertile ground for conjecture.

mhaze

You really are the comedian. I hope people do check Figure 3 and Table 4, people might read the comments written about those factors also. The projected 409 ppm of CO2 is close to the actual reading measured for 2015. Notice mhaze per Table 4 that when 409ppm of CO2 have been created the temperature is expected to increase by 0.84C over pre-Industrial times.

I note that Table 4 suggests that temperature is expected to be 1.25C over pre-Industrial times in 2030, current projections put the increase to be 1.5C for the same year. If the current extra rate of CO2 is added to what has already been created till now, the level of CO2 will be quite close to 450ppm.

By the way I met up with a mate who lectures Maths at Uni, I talked with him about the graph and drew a rough copy. You really are very wrong but unwilling to agree.
I'm happy to swear on a Bible, or make an oath that I really have spoken with people involved with Maths.

Page 31 has part of the Bibliography, mhaze.

Individual

I suggest you check what I write before “jumping the gun.”
By providing references, I do give people the opportunity to check what I write. The other factor is where I have been proven wrong, is when people are passionate about defending their opinion my expectation is they know something about the topic. Lego challenged me about Katharine Hayhoe, so I provided a reference.

On the rationalwiki reference above there is a short article listed from a New Zealand paper dated 14 August 1912, it provides a warning about the use of coal.

That's amusing, Ant. You claimed that denying HIGW was indicative of people with right wing views. But when I pointed out that supporting HIGW is indicative of people with left wing views, you pretended that HIGW is non ideological, and therefore just science.

HIGW is obviously an extremely important political issue. Both sides claim to be the ones who are the real scientists, and both sides identify with opposing political worldviews. The more you pretend that only your side has the virtue of ideological neutrality, the more you destroy what is left of your sides tottering credibility with an ever more sceptical public.

If science needs to be constantly "tested and replicated", then what went wrong with Manne's "tested and replicated" scientific evidence before the court of law? The same court was apparently more convinced by Dr. Tim Ball's "tested and replicated" scientific evidence. The court agreed with Ball that the hockey stick graph is a fraud. This same fraudulent graph was used by the IPCC to validate it's claim that global warming is almost entirely caused by human beings. That same court decision will be "replicated" if Manne is stupid enough to now take Mark Steyn to court. The hockey stick graph fraud is being taught as God's truth in Canadian school textbooks.

Your sneery claim that HICW science sceptics do not create much data implies that they are remiss in their research. But anyone who proposes that anything is a scientific fact, the onus is upon the proponent with to prove their case. Their opponents may submit evidence to support their opposition, but they do have the luxury of examining the proponents own research and testing it's validity. Scientists who said that cigarettes caused lung cancer had to prove their case. Scientists working for the tobacco companies did not have to prove it did not cause cancer.

Claiming that there are 24,000 research papers supporting the HIGW position means nothing to the public. So too, claiming that HIGW sceptics arguments have be "debunked" and their research shoddy means nothing to them either.

But one thing matters very much

When those who claim scientific authority, and who claim that the "science is settled" repeatedly make scientific predictions which are laughably inaccurate, the public starts to catch on that these scientists do not have a clue what they are talking about. Instead, the public begins to get interested in those scientists who were sceptics all along. That is where the HIGW debate is at the moment.

What have the HIGW scientists predicted so far?

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", as predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The very first IPCC meeting was ironically held in Europe during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.

In February 2019, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in snow, and it was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying it is snowing in Brisbane. Some "warming."

The Himilayan Glaciers did not melt.

The "ship of fools", consisting of an expedition from Sydney University which set sail to Antarctica in a taxpayer funded chartered Russian icebreaker, to prove that the East Antarctic Ice Shelf was melting. Instead it got stuck in the shelf in record amounts of thick sea ice, and had to be rescued by carbon belching rescue ships and their helicopters.

The dams not only filled again, they overflowed and flooded Brisbane and Townsville.

The "urgently" needed (and hugely expensive) desalination plants in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide which still rust away unused.

The Climategate scandal where supposed "scientists" discussed among themselves how to fudge the data which clearly displayed that global temperatures were not rising.

And whaddya know, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology themselves got caught red handed "adjusting" the historical temperature data by the families of the people who have been recording temperatures in their own districts for over 100 years.

Your side is not just losing, Ant, I would say it has already lost.

Lego

There is no point in trying to communicate with you Lego.
Science is not an ideology; it works on the basis of a hypothesis being made and then seeking data which proves or disproves the hypothesis. If data disproves a hypothesis then a new one is made. Foote and a little later Tyndall through their experiments showed the relationship between CO2 and radiated infrared more than a century and a half ago. The way CO2 warms the atmosphere is a factor that needs to be taken into account when firing heat seeking missiles at enemy aircraft. A reference had been provided. You do not believe in Physics or Chemistry if you discard climate science.

Scientists working for fossil fuel corporations in the ‘70s and ‘80s found fossil fuels had properties which have a negative impact on the atmosphere and oceans; references were provided. Scientists were already showing that an CO2 increase creates warming in the atmosphere and oceans before pseudo science (fake news) began to be peddled by Heartlands and WUWT et al.
Table 4 from the 1982 Exxon Report that mhaze chortles about, shows that the Exxon scientists projected that there would be a 1.25C increase in temperature in 2030 over pre-Industrial levels, currently scientists are suggesting it will be 1.5C. Check the reference I gave.

You say that science has lost; depending on your age so have you in that case. If you have children then they have definitely lost should a business as usual approach continue.

Even Glencore a major coal mining corporation has just stated they will not be involved in any further development of coal mines.

It has me intrigued in relation to the scientists working for Exxon, they wrote about anthropogenic climate change while employed by a fossil fuel corporation, they have been close to the mark.

What I have once again found is that there is no evidence based science to undermine climate science. Lots of sophistry, but no references.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-20/glencore-moves-to-cap-global-coal-output-post-investor-pressure/10831154

"when 409ppm of CO2 have been created the temperature is expected to increase by 0.84C"

"CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C"

Both from ant as he desperately tries to find a way out of his utter misunderstanding of the graph.

So temperatures rise by the same amount whether the CO2 levels are 409 or 380ppm. So it seems ant is finally agreeing that CO2 plays no role in temperature. (grin)

"By the way I met up with a mate who lectures Maths at Uni, ...."
sigh...poor poor ant has absolutely no pride. Made up teacher, now made up lecturer. What's next? A seance with Einstein? What a dill.

Oh one more piece of fun showing how poor poor ant has utterly misread all the data.

"I note that Table 4 suggests that temperature is expected to be 1.25C over pre-Industrial times in 2030".

No it doesn't. I leave poor poor ant to try to work out why. Maybe his lecturer (giggle!) can help! But just a hint. What's the expected temperature increase in 1979?

Just remember ant - when you think you understand what you're talking about, remember Table 4.

Table 4 ant, Table 4.

Of course it is pointless trying to shove left wing propaganda down my throat, Ant. I have discovered that I have a real talent for picking apart muddled left wing thinking and tossing it back in the faces of the left wing commissar wannabees who create it.

Let's examine your last pathetic effort.

You start off by trying to take the high moral ground. This the default position of the educated neo-marxist caste, every time. "We are morally pure and you are just evil" sort of crap. Among a chorus of singing angels you give a speech saying how scientific method works, and how your side are the real scientists doing just that.

That ploy might have swayed the public twenty or thirty years ago when the public presumed that scientists were unbiased, and the world's media hung on every catastrophe prediction the alarmists screeched about. But it won't work anymore.

Public opinion has usually been most influenced by educated people of intellect who are more prone to be politically aware than people down the demographic chain. And it is this group that you are losing. To begin with, they are seeing the brown shirt behaviour of the neo marxists now infesting the humanities departments of universities in the western world, and realising that whatever these nutters support, smart people should do the opposite.

It is this demographic who are beginning to realise that the people who are denying HIGW are not cranks, they are respected scientists and journalists, and their arguments make sense. Smart people are aware that real scientists don't try to win scientific debates with lawsuits, or worse, fudge data, which both the East Anglia Climate Research Soviet and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have been caught doing.

Entire populations of western people are aware of the laughable immanent doomsday scenarios which the Alarmists used to frighten governments into giving them bucket loads of money, which greatly increased the taxation burden on ordinary people. But as the years draw on and climate catastrophe never happens, the public is beginning to figure out that it has been had

mhaze

Take a look at Figure 9, though I doubt whether you can comprehend it.

A non- ambiguous comment from Shell Report.
Quote:

"Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done. A social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become 'vigilante environmentalists' in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demand action …"

Do you understand in relation to scientists .. “( including their own”) means.

Lego

Funny how the science that I’ve provided suddenly becomes neo-marxism.

In the past when I was much younger, Liberals were telling us that there were “reds under the bed “, I’ve been looking since and have not found any! From memory that was the era when Malcolm Fraser led the Liberal Party.

I don’t happen to be a paid up member of a political Party, and have in the past been very suspicious of Socialist Parties. Supposition and prejudice on your part are a foul mix. Supposition and prejudice are not found in people with insight.

The discussion previously had been about science; now farcical comments about ideology.

You clearly do not understand how science works.

As stated a few times, when abuse and obfuscation are hurled about, it is a clear indication of nothing in the way of evidence is being promoted. Funny how no references have been provided when requested rebutting anthropogenic climate change. What has been pushed though are conspiracy theories.

According to ant, an increase on CO2 levels from 380 to 409ppm has no effect on temperatures ie ant disagrees with the notion that CO2 has an effect on climate....or something. He's wound himself into so many knots trying to avoiding admitting he doesn't/didn't understand the report that he's now asserting totally contradictory things.

Table 4, ant always remember Table 4 when you make the mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about.

Did you work out yet (or did you lecture friend - giggle - explain) why you were wrong to think that the report says " temperature is expected to be 1.25C over pre-Industrial times in 2030".

Your first contradiction was to sneer that HIGW sceptics represent the right side of politics, and then you blustered when I remind you that HIGW is one of the fav causes of the loony left. Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Lee Rhiannon, and the watermelons in the Green Party will be congratulating themselves on what a great job they have done turning you into a HIGW advocating Manchurian Candidate. I'll bet you advocate for the three "R's" too. You know, Refugees, Reconciliation, and Republic. Sign the "sorry book", did you?

Now I know you have a carefully crafted pose as the unbiased observer of a neutral science, and I can't stop you from maintaining the pretence. It probably works a treat on younger opponents, but it won't work on me.

I will reiterate where the HIGW controversy is at the moment. After thirty years of totally stupid predictions which the public can see are laughably inaccurate, belief in this HIGW hoax is slowly eroding. Polls indicate that people everywhere are putting it at around 19th position in a list of suggested problems facing this world. Now that is quite extraordinary. Thirty years of a largely left wing media constantly sprouting HIGW propaganda in the publics face and discussing it like it was holy writ, and people are starting to turn away from it.

There is nothing like a state wide electricity blackout caused by a leftist governments rejoicing at blowing up a coal fired power station to focus the mind of the public on how stupid the socialist governments are that they have elected.

In general, leftism and it's potty causes are increasingly on the nose with western populations. The first indication that people are waking up was Trump's election, an event I'll bet caused you and your chardonnay sucking mates to drown your sorrows in the nearest wine bar. Brexit, yellow vests, and anti immigration parties on the rise all over Europe.

Time to jump ship, Ant. The left is the new conservative Establishment defending a failed status quo ante', and the right is the new punk.

Onya Mhaze.

To Ant.

OK, let's try a bit of logic. You say that scientists working for the oil companies 40-50 years ago predicted that there would be a 1.25 degree rise in global temperatures in about 60 years time. Around 50 years have passed, and by a the simple process of reasoned logic, it should now be around one degree warmer if their prediction was right.

But has not been any rise in global temperatures. A fact so embarrassing to those climate scientists riding the taxpayer gravy train that the "scientists" in the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute got caught discussing among themselves how to hide this inconvenient truth from the public. The "scientists" in the ABS tried to help out by fiddling the historical data in Australia.

Surely this is yet another wild prediction proven to be wrong, which any fool can see. How come you can't see it? Is there something wrong with your critical analysis circuits? Or are you just another unfortunate person with an Absolutist personality like runner and Ozspen, and to hell with logic, all you need to do is BELIEVE.

You say that science is not ideological. I agree it is not supposed to be. But because the public hold it in such high esteem, Science is replacing the moral authority of the scandal ridden church in this secular age. And is also attracting the mantle of infallibility. As such, it is a logic target for take over and infiltration by those who hold Absolutist views, and who wish to impose those absolutist beliefs on entire populations. Think that is potty? Just look at how the USSR made certain that Soviet science towed the Party line.

I am not saying that all scientists are ideological. But people need to eat. Those that choose science as a career often find that job security is definitely an issue. And if you think that people will not tell a few fibs to protect their jobs, especially if they can make out that their particular job is really important, then you are naïve of human nature.

Thanks mhaze and Lego, you have just proven my point to any casual readers.
Critical thinking does not rely on supposition.
Despite many requests for references nothing of note has been supplied.
Lego, you have been misinterpretation the speed of climate change; in Geological thinking, the speed is fast when thinking in terms of thousands of years.

A reference has been provided above:

In 1968 E. Robinson, & R.C. Robbins provided a report to the American Petroleum Institute, they provided stark warmings in their report. The report was written prior to the denier industry having been created.
"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 Shell Report has some interesting points as well, published in 1988.

The Shell Report acknowledges that "... models predicting potential warming of 3.5 degrees celsius." Being created by a combination of CO2 and other greenhouse gases."

Also:
"Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies, and could have major social, economic and political consequences."

The Report says it would be tempting to wait until the effects of greenhouse gases are experienced, though the implications for not acting are very large (Page 6).

Table 4 ant, Table 4.

To Ant.

Thank you for once again dodging a very simple question which I know you would have the greatest difficulty in answering. The more you duck and weave, the less you look like a towering figure of science, reason, and logic, and more like an evangelical ideological advocate, vainly trying to defend his disintergrating holy cause by dodging the issues.

There was no "supposition" in my premise, it is pure arithmetic that any nine year old can handle.

Here it is again. The more you dodge it, the more credibility you lose with any impartial reader who may be following our exchanges.

You said that scientists working for the oil companies in the 70's and 80's predicted a 1.25% rise in global temperatures by 2030. It is 2019 now, so by simple arithmetic, global temperatures must have risen by about 1 degree. Media sources quoting publicly accessible climate statistics say that has not happened, and global temperatures have not risen at all for twenty years.

Unless you can explain away this glaring discrepancy in your scientist's predictions, then sheer logic compels you admit that their scientific theory could do with a lot more work. And basing government policy, witch will ruin our economy, cause massive tax rises on the poor, blackout entire state electricity grids, and spend billions on useless infrastructure, on the basis of a doomsday theorem which direct observation shows is flawed, is completely potty.

You are losing the debate.

Only ten years ago, every media organisation published articles on the perils of HIGW as if it were God's Holy Truth. HIGW advocates were interviewed with reverence like the saviours of the world, while sceptics were interviewed like dangerous lunatics. One very good indicator that the HIGW hoax is unravelling, is the difference in tone in the news and current affair articles today on HIGW. Suddenly there is real scepticism by the media, and HIGW sceptics are being interviewed with respect.

It is as if the media itself now realises it has been had, and they are covering their arses before the penny drops with the public.

mhaze
Exxon Report, Figure 3, Table 4 and Figure 9.
1958 Shell "The Earth's Carbon Cycle"
!965 Report for White House
Report to American Petroleum Institute
Report from Exxon scientists
Shell Report
All written before pseudo science began, all of those reports have been referred.

I've also provided a reference to a short article written in a New Zealand paper published in 1912

Global temperature has reached 1.1C, if you read Murdoch press you will not get much sense from the journalists.
Logic plays a part in forming a hypothesis, it is objective data and observation that either proves or disproves a hypothesis.

Science is not governed by ideology, Dr Richard Alley is a conservative, like a number posting here. Kerry Emanuel is an expert on the atmosphere, he is also a conservative voter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tMeqjbA94I

Physicist Richard Muller was a climate science skeptic until he was commissioned to review the science, once having done so he changed his mind. His Agency now provides temperature information which is Internationally recognised. Title of film, I Was wrong about Climate Science is about his conversion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w

Jerry Taylor worked for Heartlands, he became concerned about the lies being told.

http://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science

Jerry Taylor began to realise that the information he had been presented from Heartlands had been doctored.

Lego

You do not understand that there is no debate about science, data and observation says whether a hypothesis is right or not. Read my last post, watch the short the Muller video, read the Jerry Taylor article which reflect what I have been writing.

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1970-exxon-imperial-oil-pollution-is-everybodys-business/

View the Collection Index from the reference.

To Ant.

I do understand that when an opponent refuses to answer a very simple question, regarding the logic of a particular aspect of an argument he has submitted, he is certainly not being scientific.

Got you in the corner, haven't I? You desperately do not want to answer that crucial question because you know it is a clanger. It sits above you like the Sword of Damocles. All you can do is bluster, stand on your dignity, say you won't respond to me anymore, or hold your breathe until you turn blue.

Answer the question, Ant, or concede defeat.

Don't answer the question, and any impartial reader who may be following our debate will know you have been licked.

Checkmate

Lego

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-globe-is-already-above-1c

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-average-temperatures-break-through-1c-increase-on-pre-industrial-levels-for-a6727361.html

"The threshold will be reached when average global temperatures are only around 2C higher than they were in pre-industrial times, new research suggests. They are already 1C higher, and rising."
from:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/runaway-global-warming-just-decades-away

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-draft/warming-set-to-breach-paris-accords-toughest-limit-by-mid-century-draft-idUSKBN1F02RH

To poor Mr Ant.

I actually anticipated your latest attempt to dodge the question you so desperately do not want to answer. I wrote a paragraph recounting how, when in a similar checkmated position like yourself, another frightened question dodger opponent simply tried to squirm out of answering it by flooding me with hot button links.

Do you lefties have a common "how to debate" book with headings like "How to Avoid Answering Questions You Know Will Expose You as an Idiot" ?

But I deleted the second paragraph before I hit the "Post revision" button because I didn't think it would be necessary. I didn't think you would stoop that low.

Silly me.

But anyhoo, I am sure any impartial observer would agree that you are well and truly checkmated. And that is important. Because even you can now see how easy it is to corner climate alarmists with the self evident failures of their wild predictions. Dr. Tim Ball should have had me on his defence team. I would lovde to have had a go at that fraudster, Michael Manne.

You must be feeling how Manne felt when he lost his court case with Tim Ball. It is a very sad day when scientists resort to lawsuits to shut up critics and settle scientific debates. But in a way, it was the best thing that happened because it displayed just who was telling the truth and who submitting the "peer reviewed" falsified data. And like yourself, who was the more credible because they were not trying to evade crucial questions. Perhaps I should take you to court and have the judge force you to answer?

If any good came out of this, it must be the realisation that, if you really are just an naïve young lefty who got hoodwinked into supporting a fashionable false cause by peer pressure, then you have backed the wrong horse. Or, if you really are an unreformable leftist with a global warming agenda to destroy capitalism, that your HIGW hoax, which worked spectacularly well at first, has run out of steam

Lego

I have given a number of references showing how there has been misrepresentation, or fraud through changing the meaning of scientific studies that is fed by Heartlands.
Jerry Taylor, is the brother of James Taylor, both were employed by Heartlands, a very conservative Agency.
Jerry Taylor had a debate years ago with Dr Joe Romm, a Physicist, after the debate, Joe Romm, informed Jerry Taylor that he was wrong about the information that he had stated about Dr James Hanson. Jerry Taylor had been provided speaking points by Heartlands staff. Jerry Taylor showed integrity and checked the material provided by his Heartlands colleagues, he found it to be wrong. He became disheartened after continually checking the information he had been provided with and resigned. Reference has been provided.

Physicist Muller had been a climate change skeptic, he studied the science and found it to be accurate, once again referenced above. Part of his funding had come from one of the Koch brothers.

US Admiral Titley, a Meteorologist was a skeptic of climate science, until he began assessing security matters in relation to climate change. Check what I have written is correct.

I did provide a number of references in relation to your 1C challenge, it’s lousy when your challenge is met, and references from a number of sources is provided. Your somersault in logic is interesting when you become abusive when the challenge has been met. Something you would not have thought about I’m sure is that projections can be met in a linear way, or in an exponential manner. So your question was not necessarily a logical one.

You are hooked on Dr Mann, yet, official temperature record of a 1C over Pre-Industrial times is inline with the hockey stick.

Science has nothing to do with ideology nor opinion.

Thank you for setting up straw man type comments

"Physicist Richard Muller was a climate science skeptic until he was commissioned to review the science, once having done so he changed his mind."

So sort of like the opposite of ant.

ant used to believe that CO2 caused temperature change but now thinks that a significant increase in CO2 has no effect on temperature. Welcome to the ranks of the deniers.

Table 4, ant...Table 4.

The only person who is "misdirecting" around here, Mr Ant, is you. This will be the third time I will ask you to answer that very simple question.

Instead, you toss around a "misdirecting" red herring about the Heartlands Institute being biased against HIGW. The only connection that Heartlands had to anything I have said is that they sponsored a meeting of eminent scientists and journalists who oppose HIGW. And it would not matter who sponsored the meeting, the important thing was what was being said by the speakers, who's points were reasonable and credible.

Your next "misdirecting" red herring, was to speak of people who were HIGW "deniers", who have changed their opinion. That is a valid point to make, but just because people change there minds about anything does not automatically make them right.

Your last misdirection, was to once again say that science is not ideological. The inference being, that you are on the side of science, and therefore, HIGW "deniers" are not on the side of science. That is complete crap, and you know it. When Professor of Geology, Ian Plimer indicated his opposition to HIGW, the alarmists screamed that he worked for the mining companies, so he must be biased.

So, lets get something absolutely clear. By making that accusation, the alarmists are admitting that science can be corrupted by vested interests. The big question is, which side is doing it?

Your contention that it is your own side which are the true scientists looks shaky indeed in the light of the failure of climate scientists "immanent unless we act now" doomsday scenarios to ever come to fruition. So too, the fact that HIGW activists like your good self refuse to answer a simple question about one of those predictions indicates that you realize that some of your scientists have demonstrably got it wrong.

For thirty years the HIGW alarmists had a dream run for their hoax, but now the public is beginning to realize that it is as big a load of crapola as Peak Oil, The Coming Ice Age, or the Millennium Bug.

mhaze

Figure 3, table 4, and figure 9.

Lego

If you do not read references provided, you can hardly complain.
I did provide a quote to one of references, you apparently were not able to comprehend it.

A quote from references provided above:

1>“Human activities have already warmed the planet about 1°C (1.8°F) since the pre-industrial era, defined by the IPCC as the latter half of the 19th century.”

2>”The world is halfway towards the threshold that could result in dangerous climate change, scientists have warned, after revealing that average global temperatures have recorded a rise of one degree Celsius for the first time.”

3>”They are already 1C higher, and rising.”

4>”“There is very high risk that ... global warming will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,” the U.N. panel of experts wrote, based on the current pace of warming and current national plans to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Abuse and not reading references is not a good combination.

We were warned decades ago about the implications of a changing climate, decision makers made no attempts to provide for mitigation or adaptation.

In relation to the Dr Ball case against Dr Mann:

“Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.”
From:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

While deniers might argue that Dr Ball tackled Dr Mann in relation to the hockey stick, that was not the case:

“In March, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Ball and his think tank for publishing statements on their websites that claimed Mann was complicit in a "cover-up" of Climategate and that he had committed scientific fraud.”[14 )
There is also a link to “climategate” which has been investigated a number of times, and no manipulation of science was found.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

Too easy, Ant.

To start the ball rolling, I am now happy to inform you that Tim Ball has now won his second court case against an IPCC member, Andrew Weaver.

Climate deniers 2. Climate alarmists 0. Two court cases to go.

If Tim Ball "defamed" Manne by saying that Manne was helping in the cover up of Climategate, and the judge found against Manne, then it looks as if the judge must have agreed with Ball that Manne did indeed help cover up Climategate. As for your assertion that Climategate was no big deal (I suppose you got that from the SMH or the Guardian), Tim Ball said that Climategate was "not just a smoking gun, but a battery of machine guns."

He also commented on your "peer reviewed" premise, saying that the Climategate guys were the very ones who controlled the process of peer review. And he has also said that the practice of "adjusting" temperature data by government weather services is going on everywhere (not just Australia). With his record of court wins, I would not sue him for saying that. Since Ball has now defeated both Manne and Weaver in court, I think that Ball has proven to have much more credibility than either of those two IPCC members.

You flourished an article like a full house of cards, saying that scientists working for the oil companies in the 70' and 80's had predicted that global temperatures would rise 1 degree by 2030. Asked three times to admit that they were wrong, you demurred and tried a bit of sleight of hand.

You posted four references alluding to a 1 degree rise all right, but the baseline from which this supposed 1 degree rise originated was not from the 70's or 80's. The only baseline from the four quotes was "the latter half of the 19th century”. The other three could have originated in 1000 AD for all we know. Congratulation, ant, with your own propensity to fudge the figures, you could have a real career prospect as a climate scientist at the East Anglia CRU.

Lego

The case was about defamation of character between Dr Ball and Dr Mann, not about climate gate itself; comprehension alert!! I provided a reference. Obfuscation Lego, the 1982 Exxon report suggested 1.25C over the pre-Industrial period in 2030, terms have meanings you clearly do not understand the convention. The references I provided stated that we are have reached 1C over pre-Industrial times. 1C ...over ... pre-Industrial ...times.

Your trying to mix your conservative ideology with science, it doesn't work.
Conspiracy theory is not working well for you either.

Where I live, we have noticed that we do not get as many insects being splattered on the windscreens of cars as in the past, is that something you have noticed also in your area?

To Ant.

Wikipedia.

The Roman Warm Period, is a proposed period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]

• Late Antique Little Ice Age
The Late Antique Little Ice Age was a long-lasting Northern Hemisphere cooling period in the 6th and 7th century AD.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China[1] and other areas, lasting from c.&#8201;950 to c.&#8201;1250. Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Averaged global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

• Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries

Gee willackers, Margaret. I guess there is such as thing as climatic variability, and the globe warms and cools without reference to human induced CO2 levels at all, as well as by solar activity levels. Funny how Manne's flat line graph hockey stick graph completely missed these inconvenient climate variables. No wonder he started his graph in 1000AD, if he had gone back to 1000 BC he would have had to air brush out two or three more climate variations, and even you might have figured out that the climate is cyclical. It warms and cools, Warms and cools. We are just in another warming period. Your own hockey stick graph that you submitted missed them too, and it was almost identical to Manne's

Lego

I have provided references in relation to the Medieval period, remember Frederik Ljungqvist, his graph was tampered with. The Medieval period was warm, but not as warm as the current period. There are a number of references backing that up. Except you do not view the references I provide.

General comments:

Extreme cold conditions in the US this winter is promoted by some to show that climate change is not happening. Yet, in some other countries there have been very warm conditions. Britian has had a very warm February, even including wildfires. Australia has had a very warm February also.

The point is, that we will not know until the end of the year what the aggregate global temperature is. Remember extreme conditions cut both ways.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-uks-record-breaking-winter-heat-in-2019?utm_campaign=RevueCBWeeklyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

Oxygen levels in Oceans is dropping, if you do not believe it to be the case, provide data that says otherwise. "... Oxygen levels in some tropical regions have dropped by a startling 40 percent in the last 50 years, some recent studies reveal. Levels have dropped more subtly elsewhere, with an average loss of 2 percent globally."
Note it is not conservative ideology or progressive ideology that determines availability of oxygen in the marine environment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-running-out-of-breath-scientists-warn/?utm_campaign=Carbon+Brief+Daily+Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue+newsletter&fbclid=IwAR3SMnBWd1a9dtVAi-wXaeRzooEkPiGcE8FUcK6oPXn2w6lj2_vbPzSy6sM

Fish stocks are disappearing, partly through over fishing and ....
"Ocean warming has led to a 4% global decline in sustainable catches, the greatest amount of fish that can be caught without depleting stocks long-term, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science."

http://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/28/world/climate-change-fishing-oceans-global-warming-intl/index.html

To Ant.

And I can provide you with climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball's research that the Medieval Warm Period was 2 degrees hotter than it is today. Which side is right? I don't know, and you don't know. But one side or the other is telling porky pies.

You can just keep submitting endless "scientific" reports which supposedly support HIGW, but that means little to me. Because even your side admits that science is being corrupted, with both sides accusing the other of being in the pay of vested interests. So, the real question becomes, just which side is lying, and why?

My contention is that it is your side which is lying. One good reason for that, is that it is the HIGW faction which overwhelmingly has the most to gain by claiming that HIGW is real. The relatively unimportant and poorly funded science of climate research has gone from almost obscurity, to being feted as the Saviours of the World. And it has been lavished with funding to keep the scientists researching. This includes opportunities for lots of adventurous travel to exotic locations, like investigating how global warming is affecting the sex life of the Adele penguins in Antarctica, or affecting the breeding cycles of the red nosed puffer fish in the Great Barrier Reef.

Another, is that HIGW just happens to suite the political and social objectives of the socialist left. So, it is not surprising that HIGW is the most treasured cause of the left wing loony, PC crowd.

Another. Whenever there is a dispute about anything, it is obvious that the side which is uses force, or legal sanctions, to shut the other side up, is the one with something to hide.

Another. The doomsday predictions of the HIGW scientists which was used to frighten the public in order to get the cash flowing, have been proven laughably wrong.

Another. Really smart people are no longer buying it. Coastal real estate prices have not plummeted, alpine prices not soared, and banks and investment houses are still giving credit on purchases of coastal real estate

Lego

On page 1 of comments, Geologist Dan Britt was referenced, he spoke about much climate variability. There is nothing new about that. Except, he stated that instead of beginning to go into an ice age anthropogenic climate change had turned the climate around in the 20th century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

Copy of study by Fredrik Ljungqvist, which goes back to Roman period, the study was published in 2010:

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

Quote:

"Since AD 1990, though, av- erage temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm dec- ades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, if we look at the instru- mental temperature data spliced to the proxy re- construction." It is the Fredrik Ljungqvist study that has been tampered with by deniers. Temperature has continued to rise beyond the cut off point of Ljungqvist's study.

A further more recent study ... "The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures."
And:
"But the new report extends that research back much further, using evidence from the seafloor and from lake sediments to gauge past temperatures, not the tree rings previous researchers have used. “What’s striking,” said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in an interview, “is that the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.”But the new report extends that research back much further, using evidence from the seafloor and from lake sediments to gauge past temperatures, not the tree rings previous researchers have used. “What’s striking,” said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in an interview, “is that the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.”"

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-to-warm-beyond-levels-seen-for-at-least-11300-years-15701

You are like a cracked record, Ant. Instead of supporting your case with a reasoned argument, you just drag out some more "science studies" to support your view, and direct me to hot button links. Again, and again, and again. It sure is easier than using your nut to think up an intelligent reply to my premises. I could do the same thing to you, but then the whole debate just reduces to "'Tis, 'tisn't, 'tis, 'tisn't't".

Both sides are accusing the other of scientific fraud. Tim Ball says that the Medieval Warm Period was 2 degrees warmer than today, and your boy says that today's temperatures exceed any warm period in the last two thousand years. Some reports say that the globe is still warming, and others say that we have not experienced any warming for twenty years, instead we are starting to cool.

The crucial question you keep dodging, and dodging, and dodging, is which side is telling the truth? Which side has the greater credibility?

Based upon the latest "explanation" for why climate catastrophe has still not met the civilisation destroying predictions of the HIGW alarmists, your boy is now claiming that we are going into an ice age, and only global warming is keeping the temperature relatively constant. That explanation is at least credible, because just like the charge that humans are affecting climate, it can't be proven. But who needs proof when you are telling left wing people what they want to hear?

But from my side of the fence, if the globe is cooling, then the deniers were right all along. What we have experienced in this particular warming period is simply natural climate variability. And your boy's "explanation" about how HIGW global warming is offsetting natural global cooling, seems to indicate that your boy is aware that temperatures are indeed cooling, as the recent snow storms blanketing the USA seem to show. And the alarmists have no idea how they are going to be able to keep selling their nice little earner fraud to the ever more sceptical public if that keeps happening.

Lego

You have no idea how science operates, I know you won't take notice of what I write, you are trying to mix your ideology with science. Science does not operate on opinions or ideology, it must be replicatible. You have not produced a sterrick of real evidence to support your views.
The references to science of the 1970s was to display how the science was displaying concern about anthropogenic climate change. There was also a reference to a New Zealand newspaper article from1912 that epressed concern about the use of coal. Those were periods before denier groups such as Heartlands began pushing pseudo science to protect the profits of fossil fuel corporations.

I have shown how science gets warped by interpretation by Heartlands and other Agencies. We are now getting to the pointy end of anthropogenic climate change. I wrote about Jerry Taylor who became aware that Heartlands had been feeding him pseudo science. His role had been to con people while working for Heartlands.
I have displayed how the work of Hansen, Alley and Ljungqvist was fraudulently changed to suit denier points of view.

I provide references and quotes from those references to display where you are so wrong. Your comprehension of nuanced information is poor. You write about climate science, but have no idea of conventions.

I'm still waiting a response to my question ... what has happened to the denier datum year of 1998?

Remember, references provided stated that we are have reached 1C over pre-Industrial times. 1C ...over ... pre-Industrial ...times.

Reality calling ant. Anybody home in your head?

Just saying "you have no idea how science operates" over, and over, and over, again, is no substitute for a reasoned argument. You can't keep claiming that your side are the real scientists, and mine are all frauds, without submitting a reasoned argument as to why this is so. You can't just keep throwing HIGW "scientific reports" at me and think it is going to impress me at all.

Both of us can submit "scientific reports" from the scientists who support opposing sides until we are blue in the face. Scientists who are deniers are not going to impress you with their scientific reports, and HIGW alarmist scientists are not going to impress me with theirs. Both of us distrust the science of either side. You claim that my side is fiddling the figures, I say that your side is doing it.

Both sides are claiming that they are the true scientists and that the other side are the charlatans. So, the real issue here. The crucial issue here. The only issue here. Is which side is telling the truth?

I have given you five good reasons in my last post to you which clearly displayed, with brief reasoned arguments, why I have good reason to believe that it is your side which are the naughty boys. Address each of those points and the arguments I used to justify them.

Failing that, just keep cutting and pasting your last 350 word post, over and over again. Because that is all you are doing anyway.

I think the reason why you just keep chanting the same mantra is because I have really got you rattled. You desperately want to avoid the points I have raised because you know yourself that what I have written makes sense, and it does not make your HIGW side look good

Lego

I provide a backup to what write, you don't, it is that simple.

No response to 1998, the datum denier year? Your unable too.

Sophistry doesn't work with science. You do not read the references provided.
You apparently do not mind unwittingly supporting fraud ...Alley, Hansen, Ljungqvist, and Taylor. Where studies are changed, or presented to appear to meet a denier point of view.

Your challenge met:

References provided stated that we are have reached 1C over pre-Industrial times. 1C ...over ... pre-Industrial ...times.

The flea says:” I provide a backup to what write,”
This is not true.
The flea has been asked continually for science which demonstrates a measurable human effect on climate, which he has failed to provide.
He made one attempt with invalid “science” from the IPCC, easily dismissed by the climate scientist Robert Carter. The flea reverted to the usual ploy of dishonest climate fraud supporters, and fails to respond to the question, because there is no such science, and any support for the climate fraud which supports AGW is dishonest, isn’t it, flea?

The flea has reminded us of his complete inability to grasp the concept of science. He
says:” An analogy, might be to completely fill a bath, then turn the tap right down to a drip and leave it.”
Only an addled and unscientific mind could produce such an inappropriate analogy
The source of atmospheric CO2 is Nature 97% and human activity 3%
http://www.truthnews.com.au/news/story/some_co2_lies

How could the flea’s “analogy” make any sense? The tap is dripping 97% natural, and 3% human, and this is supposed to prove ”human caused” warming. He obviously lacks the ability to think straight.
Explain it to us, flea.

Leo

“(TNA) is an independent Australian media outlet dedicated to preaching libertarianism and a wide variety of conspiracy theories. It's mostly run by conspiracy theorist Hereward Fenton.”

Your reference comes from a political site, rather than, a scientific one.
Hereward Fenton is not a climate scientist, the reference is quite old.

Fill a bath to the brim and then let a tap drip into it. You do not understand the analogy, I stated nothing about percentages. Your comments display how deniers try to misrepresent what has been stated.

The graph shown in Nature displays what I been saying; except, deniers do not like evidence based arguments.

The graph displays the Roman and Medieval periods in relation to contemporary times. It also shows a projection of temperature over pre-Industrial times for 2030 of 1.5C. It really gets a bit silly if you try and argue against eminent journals sure as Nature.

https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/global-warming-will-happen-faster-than-we-think

Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker |

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga9QQrszm0E

The flea says:” I stated nothing about percentages. “ No, flea, you avoided the truth, which shows your analogy to be nonsense. You give no basis for your nonsensical assertions, in your post, other than unsupported criticism of the sources.
As is customary for you, and for all climate fraud supporters, you are unable to refer us to science which shows a measurable human effect on climate. You also use the scurrilous term “deniers”, which is baseless, because you have no science to deny, just drivel about water in bathtubs.
You are a disgrace to the despicable movement of climate fraud promoters.
You fail to refer us to any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, other than in the baseless assertions of dishonest climate fraud supporters like yourself.

Leo

If people read or watch the references that I have supplied they will see where the fraud is coming from. I have given examples of where it has occurred.
All you have done is added abuse which is a red flag to show you have nothing to offer.
You produced a nonsense fake reference to try and back your ideological stance.

Well written Leo Lane.

Your premise, that alarmists only present statistics that the globe is apparently warming (according to themselves), they never submit any evidence that this supposed warming is the result of human activity.

Interesting point. I will have to add that premise to my armoury. Thank you.

Lego/Leo

You might like to provide details as to how Earth has been warmed.
Detailed references would be necessary to show how you derived your opinion.
Nothing to back up comments equals a non-scientific opinion.

The flea has found another climate liar in Thomas Stocker. As usual, the flea has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. It is not disputed that there is a human effect, but to have it recognised, it must be measured, something that the fraud backers cannot do, so, like the flea, they simply lie about it. The flea refers to my truthful accounts of his nonsense as “abuse”
"Hilary Ostrov has a post with a video of Thomas Stocker, the co-chair of the IPCC WG1, speaking at the launch of AR5 WG1 in Stockholm at the end of September.
After an introduction, the first graph Stocker shows is the decadally averaged, ‘hide the decline’ graph, the lower half of Fig SPM 1a, that I discussed in an earlier post.
He spends about two minutes on the graph, from about 07:45 to 09:45. At no point in his presentation does he show the actual annual temperature graph (the upper half of Fig 1a), which of course would have shown the levelling out in the last decade."
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/thomas-stocker-tries-to-hide-the-decline/

To Ant.

The Earth has warmed and cooled five times since 300BC. We are now in another warming period. Whether we have peaked and are now cooling, or will continue to warm, nobody can say.

If climate alarmists, who are taking what is simply natural climate variability and turning it into a ideological mission to destroy capitalism, claim that humans are the cause of the present warming period, then the onus is upon the alarmists to prove it.

This they can not do. The latest dishonest tactic by the alarmists, is to pretend that the science is universally accepted and to keep the lie alive by always referring to it as an indisputable fact. That, and keep tossing lawsuits at anybody who upsets their trillion dollar gravy train.

Legal score so far.

Climate deniers 2
Climate alarmists 0

Dear LEGO,

And the world has not seen atmospheric CO2 levels this high in over 3 million bloody years.

What laws of physics do you want me to ignore to enable me accepting that this is not causing global warming?

Pretty easy question. The other is what would it take for you to believe in the science of global warming. What would need to be laid in front of you before you could accept you were wrong?

Simple enough I would have thought.

Reflux wants to know what science is needed to" enable me accepting that this is not causing global warming?
Science already supplied by Robert Carter, demolishing the "science" produced by the dishonest IPCC
Reflux posted an assertion that Carter's science was lies.When asked for his source, he disappeared from the thread. Here is a copy of a subsequent post of mine to which he did not reply"


"Reflux disappeared when asked the source of the lies he posted about Robert Carter, as he always does when he corners himself with his own dishonesty.
Did you fabricate the lies Reflux, or do you have a source that you are able to quote?
True to form, Reflux will demonstrate his ill bred incivility by again neglecting to answer a reasonable question.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 1:40:17 P

Carter showed that the assertion by the IPCC of human caused global warming was a hypothesis which failed

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

It is not clear what you mean, flea. Do you now accept that there is no science to show human caused global warming? Why are you asking me to explain global warming, when you continually point out that I am not a scientist

Dear Steelredux.

To begin with, I don't have a clue whether or not your premise that "CO2 levels have not been this high for 3 million bloody years" is correct But I have heard geology Professor Ian Plimer assert that from what he knows of CO2 levels and natural climate variation, there have been periods in the Earths history when CO2 levels were higher, and the climate colder. And vice versa.

My problem with Mr Ant is that I do not know which side is telling the truth. I have heard it said from the Alarmist side that "97%" of climate scientists agree with HIGW, but nobody can tell me what the methodology was to find that figure. Was it a poll of every climate scientist in the world? Or, was it (as I suspect) a conference of a couple of hundred climate scientists where a poll was taken and 194 voted "yes" and 6 voted "no?

The only thing I can say about CO2 levels is it might cause global warming, so the HIGW hypothesis is based upon a credible possibility. But the IPCC is now claiming that global warming is definitely being caused by human released CO2. That is what I and every other "denier" has a problem with. If that is their hypothesis, then they have to prove it. They can't prove it. "Deniers" do not have to prove that HI CO2 does not cause global warming, any more than scientists working for the tobacco companies had to prove that smoking did not cause cancer.

Belief in this world saving religious movement is eroding fast. The reasons being.

The wild predictions of climate alarmists thirty years ago claiming imminent catastrophe did not eventuate.

The science is not settled.

Anybody who uses the law and lawsuits to shut the other side up, has something to hide.

Coastal real estate prices have not plummeted.

The noticeable change in tone from much of the mainstream news media, from total unswerving advocacy of HIGW, to a more measured and impartial tone, as they realise that they have been duped.

Leo

You supply crap references.
To gain any creditable evidence against climate science you will need to provide evidence from a reputable journal. The study would need to have a "doi" prefix. Blogs pushing against science have no credibility.

Science is a process where continual collection of data keeps refining what is known. You do not provide up to date references as none are available for deniers.

Many times I have provided the challenge of whatever happened to the 1998 datum deniers used. You are unable to answer the question, all you can come up with is abuse. Abuse is used by those having no evidence, it provides a smoke screen.

The flea has no understanding of the term “evidence”, but having no science, or sense, makes a fool of himself talking nonsense about evidence. He should stick to making a fool of himself about science, of which he has no clue
The flea says:” Abuse is used by those having no evidence, it provides a smoke screen ” So when the flea has no sensible response, he says :“You supply crap references.”No doubt the best a dishonest fraud promoter,like the flea, can do.

Lego

The consensus of climate scientists has been ascertained through going through peer reviewed reputable journals and sending questionnaires to climate scientists. A number of surveys have taken place; the range of results have been 90% to almost 100%, 97% being the mean. There have been quite a number of surveys; deniers pick on

If you can see past your ideology, research the end of Permian period when the 'great dying" took place. Nearly all life was almost snubbed out.
Technology is now available that can analyse chemical reactions which took place at that time.

Professor Plimer is not an atmospheric climatologist; yet, years ago he was touring around indicating that water vapour was what was causing the climate to change. Less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere equals less water vapour. Check the science.

Only an idiot would deny that Richard Alley does not produce science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ...

Leo

Great for you as a non-scientist, to display hubris. Let's get it very straight, you do not determine what comprises science.

To Steelredux.

The natural climate variability of the earth clearly displays a regular succession of ice ages and interglacial warming periods. If CO2 is "the highest it has been for 3 million bloody years", then how do you explain the regular warming periods which have occurred in the last 3 million years, which occurred during periods of low CO2 levels?

To Ant.

How were the questionaries worded? Did they ask "do you believe in climate change", in which case, there is your 100% agreement. If you asked the same question of HIGW deniers, you would still get 100% agreement. Were the ballots secret? Or did the respondents have to endanger their careers and sinecures by publically stating their views?

I am certain that an unknown "number of surveys" of ABC journalists would result in "97%" of those journalists claiming that the ABC is not biased. The 3% who would disagree with "97% consensus would not have jobs at the ABC in the next staff reduction cutback. As Dr. Tim Ball himself asserted, it is the most prominent Alarmists who are in charge of the peer review process.

The North Pole's ice retreat has stopped and there is just as much ice as there always was. The polar bears are not drowning. The coastal cities did turn into Atlantis. The Pacific Ocean Islanders are not swimming in the ocean looking for a place to land. The dams filled again. Hurricane super storms did not destroy entire coastlines. Millions did not die in heatwaves. Crops worldwide did not fail. Diseases caused by global warming did not kill millions. And human civilisation has not been destroyed.

I think that in another 20 years we are going to see a lot of books written about "The Great Global Warming Fraud." Authors will ask, how is it that so many educated and supposedly intelligent people could have been sucked into believing in sheer nonsense, which was invented by venal people furthering their own self interest by corrupting science for their own self aggrandisement.

Lego

You ask how the consensus was established; your the one who is critical, it is up to you to show how the studies were wrong.

You state .."The North Pole's ice retreat has stopped and there is just as much ice as there always was." That the Arctic ice is back to normal levels is a most ridiculous comment. It displays a complete lack of understanding. What are you speaking about sea ice extent, sea ice volume , sea ice area, the amount of multi year sea ice, or sea ice thickness.
The minimum sea ice extent and volume for each year happens in September.
Did you get that nonsense from WUWT? WUWT regularly writes rubbish about a recovery in Arctic Ocean sea ice.

How many billions of dollars in costs have accrued for 2019 world wide through extreme events.

Lego, the assertion of 97% support for the global warming fraud emanates from the failed cartoonist and fraud promoter John Cook, and has no validity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#99c3ca0485dd

It is widely referenced by fraud promoters, including the lying dunce, Obama
, but it is shown to have no proper basis.
There is some disagreement as to whether Cook is fraudulent, or incompetent, or both.

Dear LEGO,

You asked;

“The natural climate variability of the earth clearly displays a regular succession of ice ages and interglacial warming periods. If CO2 is "the highest it has been for 3 million bloody years", then how do you explain the regular warming periods which have occurred in the last 3 million years, which occurred during periods of low CO2 levels?”

Well I'm a sucker for punishment so here goes.

There is no doubt that solar cycles and orbital fluctuations have an impact on Earth's climate and on occasions these become overarching.

Humans have really only managed to move toward civilisations within the last 10,000 years, in a relatively benign climatic period. This is what we are putting at risk and instead of CO2 levels marching along with changes due to climate it is now taking a leadership role.

There is absolutely no physical way increases in atmospheric CO2 can not raise temperatures. Some might argue that as those temperature rises are mitigated by increases in water vapour but there are counters such as the shrinking Arctic ice extent.

The only way we can truly know the 'bottom line' is what we observe in global temperatures and they continue to rise decade by decade.

Here is what Dr. Robert Carter said, some 15 years ago, and it remains true today:"atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) 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

Dear Leo Lane,

Thanks for reminding me what a dishonest old coot Bob was.

Firstly let's fix the link to the story, yours isn't working;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate.html

Now if you look at his graph you will see it is taken from the Mid Troposhpere. That's right about 6 kms above the surface, an area where climate science says will remain relatively steady with regards to temperature while the stratosphere will actually cool. Whereas on the surface it will warm which is precisely what is is bloody well doing.

Go on Leo be off with you mate, you are playing childish games with serious matters.

Mr Ant. Saddam Hussein once had an election in Iraq where he claimed he got 99.99% of the population to vote for him to be President of Iraq. I presume that you believed Hussein's claim just because he said it. Now we get climate alarmists telling us that 97% of climate scientist believe in HIGW without telling us how they got that figure. Maybe they got it through "computer modeling" which is how they justify HIGW in the first place.

One reason why the 97% figure may be correct, is that just like in Saddam Hussein's election, you had better vote the right way if you are a climate scientist and you know what is good for you. Climate Scientist and HIGW supporter turned skeptic Judith Curry explained in this youtube clip how she was vilified by her own colleagues when she first expressed doubt over HIGW. She said she walked around her university "with knives in her back."

Professor Judith Curry Quits over Climate "Craziness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUVAwp1x1hw

On the subject of arctic sea ice, I am referring to the pair of photographs presented to the European Parliament by Nigel Farage, which shows that the once shrinking Arctic ice has now reappeared. Oh, and by the way, the guy Nigel Farage is debating claims on the Youtube clip that the climate scientists who support HIGW is "99%". Farage's opponent probably has a second job as the Iraqi Minister for Information.

Nigel Farage confronts Barroso on global warming scam (State of the Union 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54

Now you are claiming that "extreme events" are caused by global warming, which you claim with no proof is the result of human activity. That is rich, that is. extreme weather events have always occurred and always will. Drought in Australia? Forget El Nino, blame it on HIGW. The US up to their eyeballs in snow? Blame it in HIGW. Snowing in Tel Aviv and Los Angeles? It's HIGW again. Every normal extreme weather event is now "Aha! We told you so."

The claim that 97% of climate scientist support the claim that the warming is human caused is pure nonsense.It comes from John Cook, the fraud promoter at Skeptical Science

“The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1c931d783f9f
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.
If it cannot be measured then it cannot be scientifically claimed to exist.It has not been measured.

Leo

Your posts are abusive as per usual.

Get your facts right.

The consensus view did not start through John Cook. If you are going to sprout criticism, at least get your facts right.
It was Naomi Oreskes who mentioned in a speech her suspicion that the vast majority of climate scientists held the view of anthropogenic climate change. The view triggered much attention and was researched as a result. Oreskes, Doran, and Anderegg completed studies well before John Cook. Other studies have also been conducted.

Your reference from Telegraph doesn't work, Leo, no surprise.

An article about the consensus, with a stand out point that has been quoted.

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

From reference, Powell writes .. "Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

Science is not static, nor is how inferred temperature is computed via satellites. Satellites takes in slabs of data from the atmosphere and use modelling to reach a temperature. A problem arises when satellites drop off their orbits and modelling needs to be changed. The modelling used has had to be altered a number of times. Satellites do not measure temperature as do land based weather stations and so the two types of measure cannot be compared.
Oceans due to the area they range over are probably the best measure of temperature. They do not display as much variability as does the atmosphere, the comment being derived from a recent study of ocean warming.

Leo, Bob Carter, belonged to the IPA, an extreme conservative political "think tank".
Your newspaper reference goes back almost 12 years, science has bypassed what Bob Carter was stating. Bob Carter promoted the 1998 datum view held by deniers, nobody has been able to answer a very simple question of whatever happened to the 1998 denier datum point.

Oh, you want some "facts" do you Mr Ant?

Dr. Tim Ball. "Greenhouse gases comprise 2% of the total atmosphere. 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. 4% of greenhouse gases are CO2. 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity."

In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013. The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013.

31, 478 American scientists have signed a petition (9,029 Phd's) called The Global Warming Petition Project saying that they oppose HIGW. The significance of this is, that this is the first time in history that any large group of scientists have felt the need to make such a declaration. The petitioners all agreed with this statement.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the plant and animal environments of the Earth"

Lego's hyposthesis.

A group of politically motivated educated academics who's obscure profession was not considered important, in the way that Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology and Engineering are considered important, proclaimed that their research had discovered a previously unknown catastrophic world crises. That created an immediate and well funded demand for their services, and also created a new high priestly caste of politically activist scientists who felt they now had the moral authority to tell everybody else how we should live. This supposed world catastrophe, was seized upon and publicised by the world's media who are always looking for impending "end of times" catastrophe stories to frighten the public into purchasing their goods and services. It was also seized upon by left leaning politicians who immediately grasped the concept that here was a fantastic way to greatly increase taxation without any discontent from a frightened and cowed public.

Rajendra Pachauri Chairman of IPCC 2015. "The protection of planet Earth.... is my religion....."

Lego

Sorry Lego, you keep providing fake news, not facts. Your Oregon petition is old news, it represents about 0.3% of US science graduates. There are mega Reports which have far more authors when taking into account the references used to support the views expressed. It is very old news which cannot be verified.

I have provided examples of fraud produced by deniers, and provided references which support that view.

Not all scientists were saying that we would reach an ice free Arctic Ocean by now. After the huge loss in sea ice in 2012, it was a possibility.
But, multi year ice which provides a skeleton for sea ice is disappearing. Some of the sea ice is said to be rotten. When going back to 1979 when satellite measure of sea ice began, and taking into account the amount that has been lost, it is highly likely that in 10+- years the Arctic will be ice free for a period. About a year ago a ship built to be able to cut through ice 2.1 meters thick was able to travel in winter on the Arctic Ocean. That had not been possible in the past.

It is about two years ago that a yacht was able to travel both routes of the North West passage in summer.

Your so called hypothesis is wrong, already in the 1970s scientists employed by, or contracted by fossil fuel corporations, were predicting bad consequences from fossil fuels. Many references have been provided, if you read or watched my references you would not have come up with your "hypothesis". Except the references do not fit into your political ideology. It was management from fossil fuel corporations which funded groups such as Heartlands to protect their huge profits.

I'm still waiting for comments from deniers in relation to their 1998 datum point. Much energy was put into pushing the datum point. Still no response.

Dear LEGO,

Now look here young fellow, if you ask a question and I, against my better judgement endevour to answer it for you then ignoring it is just plain bad manner.

Secondly why on earth are you quoting Tim Ball? The guy has been shown to be that ordinary a trial judge in a defamation case against him tossed the complaint on the grounds that the likelihood of anyone believing him was so slim that no harm could be proven.

The judge “decided that the derogatory statements aimed more clearly at Weaver failed to meet the legal standard for defamation. His reason? No one could take them seriously. Citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Ball’s article, the judge said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.””
http://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

In my opinion the guy is an absolute joke and there is not a single thing he might say that I would accept at face value.

You got anything else?

Reflux asks:” why on earth are you quoting Tim Ball? ?”
Perhaps because he has just won a case against the climate fraud promoter Michael Mann, who failed to produce to the Court the material grounding his fraudulent “hockey stick”.
On what basis do you ask, Reflux? You posted lies about Professor Robert Carter when you had no basis to criticise his flawless
science, then you ran away to hide when questioned about your lies. You have still not answered my question as to the source or your lies about Carter.
Your ill bred reaction has been to ignore the relevant question, which is your habit when your ignorance and dishonesty place you in the untenable situation in which you have found yourself

Dear Leo,

Fruity fruit loops old chap but oh well why not.

You wrote;

“Perhaps because he has just won a case against the climate fraud promoter Michael Mann, who failed to produce to the Court the material grounding his fraudulent “hockey stick”.”

What? No he didn't. Stop making things up.

Now you know we have already discussed that Robert Carter wasn't a climate scientist. Remember?

“Dear Leo Lane,

Come on mate time to give it a rest.

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

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

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

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

Put it to bed my friend before you are strapped to one.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:04:29 AM”

Why on earth should we go over it all again?

To Ant

If 31,478 US scientists publically put their names on a petition saying that they do not accept HIGW, then the science is definitely not settled. So, if climate alarmists claim that "the science is settled" because 97% of climate scientists, who's careers and continued employment is predicated upon agreeing with HIGW, then we must agree they are right? Please submit any similar petition from your side of the fence showing tens of thousands of scientists agreeing that human generated CO2 is largely responsible for the latest warming period that the Earth is presently experiencing.

In the last 8 thousand years, the Earth has warmed 6 times, and cooled five times. How come human induced CO2 played no role in the first five warming periods?

You were right about your second premise. Only one climate scientist claimed that the arctic would be free of ice by 2013. But that was enough for the BBC to unquestionably publicize give his stupid claim like it was God's holy writ. No skepticism. No opposing point of view. Like the "stolen generations" fraud, it was unquestionably reported as undeniable fact. And like every other idiotic prediction made by your side, it was yet another one that was subsequently disproven.

Meteorologist and skeptic John Coleman has claimed that for almost thirty years, climate skeptics have been treated by the press as simply kooks, and most media simply refused to interview them. But any HIGW scientist can say any blithering nonsense, and the media hangs on their every word.

Now we come to your latest claim that anti HIGW organizations are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Natural Gas donated US $26 million dollars to the Sierra Club because the SC wants to shut down coal fired power stations. And that is in the interests of Natural Gas. HIGW organizations are lavishly funded by government and the UN, while skeptic organizations rely mainly on public donations, and are not in the same league when it comes to funding. Professor Judith Curry said that no government has given any research money to skeptics.

To Steelredux.

Yes, you really are a "sucker for punishment."

You claim that Tim Ball is an idiot. You base that claim on the fact that Ball made a derogatory opinion about climate alarmist Andrew Weaver, which Weaver claimed was defamatory and actionable. Weaver sued Ball and lost. The judge agreed that what Ball said was not defamatory. And your premise is that Ball is the idiot?

Now, you have agreed that there is such a thing as natural climate variability. And that the Earth goes through regular progressions of glaciations and warming periods. You appear to have agreed with Professor Plimer that past warming periods were independent of CO2 levels. (correct me if I am wrong on that)

You have admitted that all of the previous warming periods going back since forever were the result of factors other than human induced CO2 levels.

OK, we are again (right on schedule) in another warming period. But this time you claim that this particular one can only be caused by human released CO2. And you have no proof of that extraordinary claim. And the "scientists" you believe, who have vested interests in making that claim have no proof, but you believe it anyway.

As Spock would say, "But Captain, that is illogical."

We both agree that CO2 rises can warm the atmosphere, and we both agree that this can be a bad thing. But nobody can say just how much CO2 can raise global temperatures even one tenth of one degree.

The problem is, that climate scientists are predicting utter catastrophe unless everybody in the western world (excepting countries like China and India) immediately make like hobbits and live in a post industrial world. But so far, all of their predictions about dams not filling, the polar caps melting, the oceans rising 10 metres by 2030, etc, etc, have simply not come to pass.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole HIGW premise is greatly exaggerated, and the reasonable solution is to investigate the viability of using alternative energy sources, while not destroying our economy in the process.

LEGO

I provided a reference earlier from another source quoting the Judge in relation to Tim Ball. The quote from the Judge was quoted as being equally unfavourable, pretty well stating that what Ball presented to the Court was completely wrong, it couldn't be taken seriously.
A further quote from SteeleRedux's reference .. "Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for."

Funny how when getting to the nub of political affiliations; it is the conservatives writing here who display their affiliations.

Leo

The hockey stick has been shown in a number of studies post Dr Mann's original study. There have been a number of investigations in relation to it.

A compilation of many proxies supporting the hockey stick:

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788#abstract

A summary of the report:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/07/12/scientists-compile-most-complete-climate-curve-of-the-last-2000-years/#2b4bb2146f1

The flea has referenced a dataset, and a report on it..
The document itself announces that there are many limitations on its use: The current database includes a large number of metadata fields to facilitate the intelligent reuse of the data. Table 1 (available online only) lists a subset of information in a single-page format. Supplementary Table 1 includes additional metadata fields with critical information to convey the appropriate use of each dataset"”
This is typical of the flea’s demonstration of his complete inability to grasp the concept of science, resulting in his posting of endless irrelevant material. He is also incapable of understanding “irrelevance”, so that 99.9% of his posts are of no consequence

In relation to the database, which the flea submitted as proxies in support of Mann’s “science”, he does not indicate where in the paper such support is evidenced, and there appears to be no such support in the referenced paper. Another proof by the flea that he has no idea of science

To Mr Ant.

On the subject of HIGW alarmists Andrew Weaver LOSING his defamation case against Tim Ball, your premise is that the judge made references to Ball making assertions which are not defamatory, because they are plainly ridiculous. I read that as saying that what Ball wrote was sarcastic and humorous and it was not meant to be taken seriously. I could say that Mr Ant is such an awful person "that even his dog doesn't like him." What I wrote is not defamatory, because it is humorous and not serious. But if you are a HIGW freak and you are mortified that one of your enemies just trounced one of your heroes in open court, then you need to find something, anything, to try to make a catastrophe a victory.

On the subject of your "proof" of Manne's infamous "hockey stick" malarkey, let's examine that.

Your first hot button link was written in what bureaucrats call "Diseased English." That is the art of concealing the truth by writing a report which is so long winded, and so full of obsolete wording or professional jargon. that it is simply incomprehensible to an ordinary person.

Your next hot button link was a précis of the first. The interesting thing was the 6 graphs which supposedly displayed that temperatures were constant for 2000 years. But they don't. The graphs show data for historical record, tree rings, coral growth, marine sediment, lake sediment, and glacier ice.

Coral growth shows no data at all for the Medieval Warm Period. So why it was even included is a mystery? Perhaps the alarmists just needed a bit of padding and they hoped that nobody would notice?

"Documents" clearly shows that the MWP was even warmer than today. Gee willackers. Margaret. I suppose that was because the alarmists couldn't find a way to "adjust" that data. Glacial ice equal. Marine sediments significantly warmer. Tree rings colder. And lake sediments colder.

The best your "data" can suggest is that the Medieval Warm Period never happened. But history says it did happen.

LEGO

Your comments about Ball and the case he put before the Judge are very funny. Honestly, what scientist would put a case to a Judge using flawed science?
You have displayed comprehension problems in relation to science, there are many proxies that scientists use to ascertain what has happened in the past in relation to climate.
You say .. "thing was the 6 graphs which supposedly displayed that temperatures were constant for 2000 years. But they don't." You really ought to give up, you you clearly do not comprehend that there are constant variations. Please quote where I have written otherwise.

Deniers argue the Medieval Period was warmer than present times. The temperature increase we are experiencing over pre-Industrial times takes in global temperature not just that of the Northern Hemisphere. Hence proxies from both Hemispheres are required to compare current temperature trends with past temperature trends.

As displayed in references, fraud has been used by deniers to doctor graphs from studies, examples have been given. Remember Fredrik Ljungqvist,documentation shows how part of a graph he displayed had been cut off to try to display the Medieval Period as being warmer than now, a photo from the journal he had his work published in shows very clearly that we are living in warmer times. Do you support such fraud?

You still haven't answered the question about the 1998 datum point that deniers used in relation to temperature. Suddenly it is no longer used, why?

Leo

Those proxies are a nuisance aren't they when they do not support your opinion. Proxies provide data, opinion just provides sophistry.

"A team from the PAGES 2k Consortium (which comprises 98 regional experts from 22 countries) has now compiled the most complete, high-resolution temperature curve to date, using 692 proxy-data records from 648 sites around the world, collected over the years by more than 100 scientists. The records used include tree-rings, ice-layers, layers of sediments and rocks, microfossils, the growth of corals and historic documents. By combining the various archives, the researchers were able to achieve a high temporal resolution - in some cases down to biweekly intervals. The shortest record covers just 50 years, but, the longest record provided data that covers the last 2,000 years."

from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/07/12/scientists-compile-most-complete-climate-curve-of-the-last-2000-years/#5f9f07d76f14

Where are the data sets compiled by skeptical scientists?

Why is the 1998 datum used by deniers no longer used by deniers?

To Mr Ant.

One of the benefits of debating, is the need to seek information to counter ones clued up opponents. So I must thank you for making me do some more research, because I have found this gem on Youtube.

One problem I have experienced is that I have not been able to find any well conducted debates between supporters and skeptics of climate change, so that I could evaluate the veracity of the different opinions in real time.

The debate on Youtube is between prominent alarmists Professor Michael Manne and Rear Admiral Dave Titley USN (retired) opposing prominent climate skeptics Professor Judith Curry and ex Greenpeace leadership member Patrick Moore.

Climate Debate - Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg&t=3391s

The debate is one and a half hours long. But unfortunately loses sound during the last 40 minutes in the Q&A phase, which is a great pity.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would have rated the presentations given by the debaters as

Michael Manne 6.
Dave Titley 7.
Judith Curry 5.
Patrick Moore 10.

I think that the most interesting aspect of the debate is how the alarmists spoke mainly in generalities and doom predictions, while the deniers spoke more in specifics using graphs. Patrick Moore's graphs in particular were devastating to the alarmists claim that CO2 has much effect on climate temperatures.

LEGO

Your points in relation to the debate are immaterial, you have not shown a comprehension of what science involves.

Many of the matters brought up by Drs Curry and Moore, have been discussed in my references provided earlier.
Professor Titley, was an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. He spoke about Naval bases being subject to flooding through climate change. In doing so he cut out much of Dr Curry's argument. Arguments about tidal marks from the past have lost their impact on the basis that water levels in large bodies of water have peaks and troughs. Commonsense suggests that's wrong, it depends on the warmth/coolness of major currents. Miami and some other cities on the Eastern sea board of the USA are subject to flooding even when there has been no precipitation.

Sometime ago I referenced, Dr Burger who took rock samples from the end Permian period to display the Physics and Chemistry that had happened during the "great dying". The sophisticated technology he used has not been available for long. He concluded that the "great dying" provides an analog to what is beginning to happen now.

There is no doubt that CO2 takes up and stores warmth, experiments show that to be the case. Water vapour doesn't last long in the atmosphere, the amount created is subject to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warm atmosphere is able to pick up more water vapour.

It is not as though climate scientists have not taken into account Milankovitch cycles and other cycles (Dan Britt), already referenced.

Both Professor Mann and Professor Titley both displayed material to back up their arguments. Professor Titley displayed a slide of a recent Pentagon Report which discusses climate change risks, apart from other security risks.
You have not answered my question about the 1998 denier datum point. It relates to the credibility of Dr Moore's views on climate also. A non response cuts any comments you make about science to shreds.
Dr Moore latched himself to that datum point. Please answer what happened, to that 1998 argument.

To Mr Ant.

You keep chanting the same old mantra, just like Ozspen who thinks that the universe was created in six days.

I googled "1998 denier datum point" and all I got was a plethora of photos with titles such as "RSS TLT", "McShane and Wyner 2010", and "ELC traces where valid muscle offset datum was average." If you can make sense of any of that, then give me a précis and I will comment on it.

Yair, Rear Admiral Tilley was a HIGW sceptic who changed his mind. Professor Currey was a HIGW alarmist who changed her mind. Sceptics 1. Alarmists 1. What did you hope to prove by that?

You are submitting "evidence" from a Dr Burger which I can not validate or refute. As a non scientist, I rely on scientists presenting the facts to me so that I can decide which side is telling the truth. Because one side is definitely telling porky pies. Tim Ball said that his best contribution to the debate was his ability to simplify complex concepts so that ordinary people can understand them.

Any doubts I may have harboured about HIGW being a crock has been almost entirely dissipated by Patrick Moore's masterful presentation in that youtube debate.

Patrick's graphs were devastating evidence against HIGW. His main points was that global warming started 300 years ago at the end of the LIA, before industrialisation. That makes sense. Going back 570 million years, he displayed graphs of temperature combined with CO2 levels which showed no correlation between CO2 and global temperature, which cross connects with Professor Plimer's declaration.

The last three Ice ages in the last 100,000 years caused by the Malenkovich cycl,e display gradually reducing temperatures. The Earth is cooling. CO2 was steadily reducing in our atmosphere, to the point that it could have endangered the continued existence of plant life on Earth. He said that the Earth is now greening because of increased CO2, which cross connects with news stories in the media about this very phenomenon.

Dear Lego,

Sorry mate but I would have rated Moore's presentation at about a 2.

It is patently obvious he has no climate credentials unlike the others and was instead just trotting out well honed platitudes so I can see how they may have pushed your buttons however they have lost a lot of currency especially over the last 10 years as people have become more knowledgeable about the impacts of CO2 and global warming.

Even then he was all over the shop. CO2 is apparently a minor contributor to the green house effect – water vapour is far more significant contributor drowning out any effect of CO2 – but increases in water vapour may be contributing to cooling rather than warming – but warming is good as it is pulling us out of a mini ice age. Whew!

He does things like talk about how much more CO2 is held in carbaceous rock than in the atmosphere as though that is some how relevant and look what he does with the graph of CO2 concentrations from here; http://youtu.be/pVXHaSqpsVg?t=3194 when he turns it into a “death of all plants” trend line in the following graph. He does the typical denier trick of taking a shortened (160 mya) peak to make a point not supported by the larger graph.

The bloke is a fraud but I'm happy to discuss any of his points with you. Tell me which one you found the most impressive and we can have a look at it.

LEGO

You really don’t get the significance of the question I keep asking about 1998 do you. It was a major talking point by deniers, why has it disappeared?

When you question the matter of coral proxies, you display your ignorance in relation to past global temperature.

The references I provided by scientists employed by oil corporations in the 1970s talked about conditions becoming more extreme in the future with a rise in greenhouse gases.

Points Dr Moore has made in an article for the Australian:

"Ocean acidification was “invented” in 2005 by climate scientists because global warming wasn’t bad enough.
Because corals and shellfish have been around for millions of years they’ll be fine if the ocean keeps soaking up all the extra CO2.
The oceans have a built-in natural “buffer” that stops the water from swinging around the pH scale (the scale used to measure acid and alkaline states).
People who keep saltwater aquariums at home sometimes add CO2 to the water to make plants grow – therefore, CO2 is great for the oceans.”

These points have been debunked by experts in the field as displayed in reference.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-experts-about-ocean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers

What do you know about canfield oceans, LEGO?

Dr Suzuki, has stated .. “Moore once even claimed glaciers are “dead zones” that we’d be better off without! There’s that twisted logic. It’s true plants don’t grow on glaciers, but microorganisms and other life do.“

http://davidsuzuki.org/story/faulty-logic-fuels-fossil-fools/

Moore said of glyphosate, "You could drink a whole quart of it, and it won't hurt you." The interviewer then offered to actually bring him a glass of the stuff to drink on camera. Moore refused.

The flea says:” Whatever happened to the denier datum year of 1998, deniers no longer use it?. This is a constant refrain of the flea, demonstrating his ignorance of climate. Only a complete ignoramus, lacking all knowledge of climate, would ask such a question. How do you find your way out of bed in the morning, flea? You do not even know that “denier” is not a valid word,in this context, since the fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science to deny.
You cannot refer us to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, since there is no such science. Your ill-bred failure to reply is not just evidence of your failure to behave like a reasonable human being, but evidence of your support of climate fraud, while knowing there is no science to support it.

To Ant.

I have to thank you for getting me interested enough on this topic to do a lot more research. Doing just that, my advice to you as an alarmist is to switch sides now.

I have certainly discovered a lot more material, the most interesting is the scientific dispute involving climate scientists on one hand, and both geologists and astrophysicists on the other. Climate scientists who support HIGW routinely use graphs displaying the close relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, the inference being that CO2 drives temperature. But this is the opposite of what geologists know to be true. To a geologist, it is temperature which drives CO2 levels.

I will tell you how it works. The oceans hold 40-50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the oceans warm, they outgas and release more CO2 into the atmosphere. When they cool, they act like a CO2 sink and they absorb it. Geologists say that the graphs which HIGW advocating climate scientists use to "prove" that CO2 drives climate, is being deliberately misread, and that this interpretation is being fed to students.

I also learned that the UK's socialist preaching Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a brother who is a leading climate sceptic and an astrophysicist. Piers Corbin advise to those seeking answers as to whether whatever proportion of climate scientists support HIGW is to "follow the money."

Lastly, comes this notable warning from President Eisenhower which appears to support the idea that what we are seeing in HIGW is a massive fraud.

President Eisenhower.

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract virtually becomes a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in giving scientific discovery and research the respect that we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific and technological elite.

LEGO

You are joking in relation to changing sides, you have not provided the evidence to do so. You are not able to make any comment about the 1998 datum point deniers used.

When oceans are cool they act as a sink for CO2, they are not able to retain that CO2 when they warm. They have warmed significantly.
Your comprehension is lacking, the Pages Consortium reference provided proxies from around Earth to knock out the denier argument about the Medieval Era being warmer than today. An aggregate of temperature drawn from proxy analysis from both Hemispheres was provided. Deniers have not been able to provide such an analysis.

Deniers have pushed the sun, natural variation, cosmic rays, volcanic action, and a hiatus in temperature increase as answers. Ice cores show that these are not factors. Present your arguments and data to Richard Alley, Jason Box, or Eric Rignot et al (and others).

Something you probably haven’t noticed LEGO, is that there are few skeptical climate scientists. When studies created by skeptical scientists studies have tried to be replicated, it hasn’t worked, a reference had been provided.
A good proportion of those promoting anti anthropogenic climate change are not even scientists; Anthony Watts being an example.They spout off about concepts being wrong, or data has been mishandled; they bring no new data to support their views.

You have pretty well admitted you do not visit “red button” sites which have been referenced. I can honestly say that I have visited many sites that deniers have provided, and found them to provide pseudo science. Graphs often provided have been altered to suit arguments. If a Uni student in any subject was to present a diagram or graph from a reference that they have altered to suit their view point, in all likelihood they would be at least suspended , if not expelled. Examples of fraud have been provided that deniers have used.

In science just saying something is wrong is meaningless, some form of evidence needs to be provided. Lego, you, or anybody else, have not provided any evidence.

To Steelredux.

Your premise is, that Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and therefore he has no credibility. Gee, we could have a lot of fun with that bizarre reasoning. Keith Murdoch should not have thought that he knew batter than British generals, when he told the public that Gallipoli was a military catastrophe that the generals were trying to cover up. John Harrison could not have solved the problem of Longitude which had baffled scientists for 200 years, because he was just a village carpenter who made clocks.

Bong to that one, Steelie.

What Moore solved for me was one good point which you thermophobics could flourish. I had seen the very convincing presentation by Al Gore in which he showed a seemingly indisputable close correlation between CO2, global temperatures, and sea level rises. But Moore displayed another credible explanation for that. Moore's presentation also displayed that over a time period of 570 million years, there is no correlation at all between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

This proves to me, that CO2 levels have little effect on global temperatures. What drives global temperatures significantly, consist of a dozen different factors which act either with, or against each other, to produce the wild climatic variations the Earth has experienced over a very long period of time. In shorter periods, the earth goes through regular climatic cycles. This present warming period is just the latest in a series of warming periods which are about a thousand years apart. It is right on schedule, and the only connection it has with CO2 is that it coincided with humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you first contributed to this topic, you screeched "there is more bloody CO2 in the atmosphere than for the last 3 million years!" Moor's graph showed that if anything, CO2 levels have been declining over 570 million years to it's lowest levels, before humans inadvertently started correcting that. His premise that all plant life may have become extinct if humans had not intervened is credible, and confirms media stories citing agronomists, which have suggested just that.

Leo

You say .. “This is a constant refrain of the flea, demonstrating his ignorance of climate. Only a complete ignoramus, lacking all knowledge of climate,….”

Yes it is an embarrassment isn’t it Leo, deniers argued the point that temperature had stopped increasing after 1998.
Your mate Bob Carter wrote about it Leo.
His headline reading “There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998”

You only use abuse Leo, as you cannot offer anything that is evidence based.

To Mr Ant.

I am not joking at all about you needing to switch sides, my dear Ant. Both of us agree that either the skeptics, or the thermophobics, are definitely engaged in massive scientific fraud. To the extent of altering and "adjusting" graphs and historically collected temperature data. The big question is, which side?

With my good self providing ever more evidence and extremely good arguments supporting the fact that it is the alarmists doing it, your only response is to try to make me argue the case for something you call "the 1998 denier datum point". Which I have never even heard of. Yet you keep insisting that I argue it, presumably because you already have your arguments ready and you want me to go into territory you are comfortable with. Bugger that.

Instead let's use a bit of plain logic.

Now you remember Al Gore standing in front of an audience displaying a graph showing the close connection between repeating cycles of global warming, CO2, and sea level rises, right? Well, there I am out mowing the lawn and thinking about that, and it struck me. Let's select just one of those cycles where climate suddenly got warmer because of Human released CO2.

The only explanation for that could be, that somehow, in the dim distant past, a previously unknown race of either human beings or space aliens must have begun industrialization on planet Earth, causing CO2 to rise, which dragged temperatures and sea levels upwards. But why then why did the climate cool again? Was it because these unknown people went extinct after destroying their environment? But wait, even that doesn't wash.

If CO2 leads temperature, (instead of the other way around) then once started, there must have been a runaway greenhouse effect. Because the world's oceans hold 40 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and warming oceans releases CO2. As the oceans warmed, they would release even more CO2. More CO2 causes temperatures to rise, oceans warm, more CO2.

The premise that CO2 drives temperature has whiskers on it.

Dear Lego,

You wrote;

“Your premise is, that Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and therefore he has no credibility. Gee, we could have a lot of fun with that bizarre reasoning. Keith Murdoch should not have thought that he knew batter than British generals, when he told the public that Gallipoli was a military catastrophe that the generals were trying to cover up. John Harrison could not have solved the problem of Longitude which had baffled scientists for 200 years, because he was just a village carpenter who made clocks.”

What on earth are you trying to say? If the generals were covering up something then they obviously knew it was a stuff up so Murdoch was not reinventing the wheel. Harrison did not go against conventional science at all, it was just that an astronomer was in charge of the King's prize and attempted to reject any non-astronomical solutions.

Neither of your examples have the slightest bearing on the issue.

Try this on for size, if there were four people in a room discussing your case and there was disagreement between the three surgeons on how to proceed but then the non-doctor spoke up and came up with something out of left field would you really put your life in his hands over the other three?

Moore really only presents stuff that is generally accepted and makes out like it is some great revelation. It isn't. Of course it is recognised that warmer temperatures mean greater CO2 degassing by oceans and that the earth has gone through wide fluctuations in both temperatures and CO2 levels. While CO2 was not historically the principal driver in temperature variations the artificial releasing of millions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere, by the simple laws of physics, will warm the planet.

The argument that rapid temperature rises will not allow for plant and animal species to properly adapt nor will it allow humans to do the same without great cost stands and nothing Moore says disputes it.

Dear Steelie.

I was responding to your clear implication that Patrick Moore was not qualified to talk about climate sciences, since he was not a climate scientist. Using that mindset, nobody who is not a frocked and diplomaed expert in any particular field has credibility. I reject that completely, and I used two very good examples of how non experts got it right over the supposed experts.

The example of Harrison is particularly relevant. Almost the entire (97%?)of the British scientific community despised Harrison and opposed his ever being recognised as the man who solved Longitude. This was because he was a giant embarrassment to the PC thinking of the time. The Royal Society was outraged that a lowly carpenter and non gentleman could solve a problem that had befuddled the science communities of several nations for well over a hundred years.

What was worse, was that the British scientific community knew he was right. They cheated and hounded him. They set him ever more difficult standards to comply with, and even allowed his greatest critic to control the validation process. They tried every dirty trick in the book to delay his work so that they could come up with a scientific solution to Longitude.

Your own example of surgeons is quite valid. But if you like swimming, and three doctors told you that they had discovered a new disease, and you and everybody else must never go swimming again or else something terrible would happen to you all in a few years time. And if the years passed and nothing happened, and those same doctors were demanding you give them lots of money to continue their work. And other non doctor medical personnel like medical researchers and nurses said the doctors were wrong, would you not at least take seriously what the deniers said?

Thank you for acknowledging "that CO2 was not historically the principle driver in temperature variations". That makes you smarter than Ant. But if you accept that, then why do you now think that CO2 must be the principle cause of climate change today?

LEGO

I'm still waiting for evidence from you.
CO2 breaks down in the atmosphere, as does methane. You don't read science. Before being able to discount something you need to have a working knowledge. The Earth over thousands of changes its orbit and also changes on its axis.
Deniers have been caught out fraudulently changing information to prove their agenda.
Should scientists tamper with data, they will soon get caught out. Remember science must be replicable.

A couple of years ago I came across a very useful article in deciphering what is true, and what isn't in science. It gets beyond causality as a determining factor through testing a concept via a number of prisms.

http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32

Use the criteria that Seth Miller uses and it shows how your denier points of view fall apart.
But, I doubt whether you will. To begin with, the 1998 argument deniers used to argue about doesn't hold up.
Take Criteria 1, which is strength, there is no doubt that CO2 does react to infrared radiation. Experiments show that to be the case.
Criteria 2, is Consistency, the example given in the article is growing seasons changing.

And so on, with the other criteria described in the article.

To Ant.

Thank you for submitting your HIGW report.

Criterion 1 graph shows the close relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. But your author states that "We do not know if carbon dioxide causes temperature to rise; temperature causes carbon dioxide to rise;" BONG. We do know that it is Temperature which drives CO2 levels.

Criterion 2. Right, look at the graph. Sceptics say that temperatures rose from 1880 to 1945 (The Grapes of Wrath), fell from 1945 to 1977, and rose to 1998, and is now falling. Except for the last years, that almost exactly matches the graph.

Criterion 3. Graph 1 shows that the last 3 warming periods were warmer than the present one. Graph 2 just tells us that the planet warmed from 1880. The last bit from 1998 to today is in hot dispute.

Criterion 4. The graph is fraudulent and out of date because it does not even show the cooling which occurred 1945 to 1977, or from 1998 to present. It is also implying that CO2 drives temperature, which is demonstrably wrong.

Criterion 5. We know that as temperatures rise, sea levels rise, and CO2 increases in lockstep as oceans release CO2. The fact that reflected IR radiation is in sync with these three oscillations caused by rising temperatures is to be expected. And this bloke is a scientist? Standards must be dropping.

Criterion 6. A Swedish scientist figured out that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that humans releasing more into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise. Fair point. But the unknown question is, what specific concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause any significant rise in temperatures?

Criterion 7. Consensus. According to Emiritus Professor of Geology Don Easterbrook about the "97% consensus". ""A graduate student in Indiana or Illinois, sent out 10,257 questionares to climate scientists. He got 3,146 back. Of those, he selected 77 or 79, I am not quite sure of those numbers, that he handpicked out of those responses. And he asked those people "do you think that CO2 causes climate change? All but 2 said "yes.""

LEGO

Criteria 1, Strength... Why do you think CO2, methane and other gases are called greenhouse gases? First postulated by Fourier in the 1820s. Do you not understand that experiments can be conducted to display how CO2 picks up warmth. NASA informs us that temperature has risen currently 10x faster than in last million years. Back computing using data already known supports anthropogenic climate change.
Criteria 2, Consistency ...the article provided 178 measures not using thermometers to show consistency with what is happening. Including plankton shells. Unmistakeable warming over the last 130 years consistent with temperature measure from thermometers. Dropping information that does not suit! Comprehension alert.
Criteria 3, Specificity … NASA informs us that temperature has risen currently 10x faster than in last million years. You admit that the 1998 datum used by deniers is garbage.
Criteria 4, Temporality … Isotopes of CO2 can be identified as to its source. When there was a large increase in CO2 produced by industrialisation temperature increased accordingly. To claim a graph is fraudulent you need to provide evidence, it uses 2 Y axes.
Criteria 5, Dose Response … Levels of CO2 follow the seasons which can be seen from the Mauna Loa Observatory. Temperature follows in same way. As oceans take up 70% of Earth’s surface they tend to hold temperature increase more so than land mass. Though LEGO your observation fits more into anthropogenic climate change than denier claims.
Criteria 6, Plausibility … Comprehension, or forgetfulness is a problem here for you, LEGO. Remember the scientists working for fossil fuel corporations in the 1970s? Fourier 1820s was first to identify greenhouse effect. We would not survive without greenhouse gases.
Criteria 7, Coherence … Any scientist able to knock down the science of anthropogenic climate change would get their names up in lights and gain recognition that Einstein has. Hawking, while not quite having the status of Einstein, certainly believed in anthropogenic climate. There are several studies which have analysed consensus.
Criteria 8, Experiment … Very difficult when we only have one planet, aerosols present an interesting factor.

To Ant.

C1. Because they warm the atmosphere. And your point is....?

C2. Whatever the methodology or subject, the results of this research was demonstrated on the graph. That graph just happens to match the graphs which sceptics say was the true values for temperature from 1880 upwards, except for the last bit of it.

C3. But that is not what your second graph displays. It shows four warming periods, 100,000 years apart, each as steep as the rest. The previous rises were obviously independent of human released CO2. What we are seeing is an almost clockwork repetition of a cycle of warming periods. The only thing different about the latest warming period, is that it occurred after civilisation began using fossil fuels.

C4 Oh, now I get what you mean by this constant reference to the "1998 denialist whatever." You are saying that the planet is still warming? Gee that's going to be hard to sell. What with Moscow just emerging from 10 feet of snow, Europe emerging from record snow, Britain's worst snow storm in 50 years, snow in the USA reaching the Gulf of Mexico, snow in Cairo and Tel Aviv, ski resorts thriving everywhere, arctic ice reappearing, and glaciers growing again.

C5 You seem to be suggesting that CO2 leads climate? So, what caused the three previous pre human warming periods, which were warmer than this one, even though CO2 levels have been decreasing to their lowest levels before humans rectified that? Was it three previously unknown races of humans or aliens, who industrialised and started pumping out CO2? Then all three went extinct?

C6. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. You seem to be suggesting that since a bunch of scientists working for the oil industry cried "We'll all be rooned", that we must believe them.

C7. If there are "several studies" showing a clear consensus of climate scientists, then post them up and let me pick them apart.

LEGO

I did send send a reply earlier to wrong article:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20192&page=4

LEGO, every hear about weather variability, extremes in weather were projected into the future by climate scientists in the 1970s. For your Russian, and US examples, for the last four or five years there have been similar circumstances. Yet at the end of the year, global temperatures were shown to be warming. This is the huge but, trend lines are against anything you suggest, backed up by 178 proxies which supported temperature measure over the last 130 years.
You have displayed ignorance in relation to some areas, your logic is out of whack in relation to trying to create a datum year for 2019 when we are not quite a quarter of the way through 2019. A bit of riddle for you, there are countervailing temperatures already, in most likelihood they will knock out your comments anyway. What you wrote about is called “noise”, noise gets cancelled out in the long term.

You have no arguments about proxies, LEGO.

You can find references to consensus studies yourself.
If you believe you can pick climate science apart, then you display a great deal of hubris. You have cherry picked the reference I’ve provided, and ignored salient points.

Remember proxies and ice cores, LEGO.

LEGO,

On your Easterbrook story....

Yes, about 10000 scientists were surveyed. 3000 responded. When the numbers were run they showed about 80% agreed with the survey questions. That didn't suit the needs of these so-called scientists so they decided to exclude groups which they'd previously included (somehow the alarmists think this is valid). So they excluded groups like solar scientists (what would they know about the climate? - it's not as though the big yellow thing has anything to do with climate!!). Geologists also got booted. Finally they got the answer they wanted (remember, this is how climate science works!!) and found 75 of 77 (of the original 10000) who agree with the survey questions.

And what were the questions?
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Nowhere did they try to define 'significant'. Some of those who answered said later they thought 10% was significant.

Now, most so-called deniers would answer yes to those questions. I certainly would. Nowhere does it suggest that warming is bad or dangerous or will continue. But that is how it was used by propagandists like Gore and Obama.

It was all a con to hook the innumerate.

Which brings us to ant who is back claiming that its all about CO2. But earlier in this thread he told me that an 8% increase in CO2 would have no effect on temperatures. To be fair that was based on his utter misreading of a graph and his innumerate inability to understand the numbers. Still he was adamant that he was right. So its a little strange to see him go from claiming rises in cO2 have no effect on temperatures to its all about CO2. Well that's ant for you.

Table 4, ant, Table 4. Always remember that Table 4 reveals you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

To Ant.

I watched that youtube presentation of yours, and it actually made me laugh.

The show presented 3 "orbital" factors that create climate change, but called these 3 "orbital" factors "weak."

Next, came a graph, which once again, shows temperature leading CO2. The voice over even states this, saying "Orbital factors begin a long, slow warming trend which causes outgassing.....reinforcing and amplifying the weak orbital forces." Point 1. If "weak orbital forces" initiated the warming climate change, then they are definitely not "weak." And since the voice-over has inadvertently admitted that these "weak orbital forces" are the initiators of the warming, then global warming is definitely not caused by greenhouse gases, are they?

Point 2. If Orbital forces are "weak" and greenhouse gases "strong" then how come the rising graph suddenly takes a dive, which the "strong" forces then follow? Answer? The "weak" forces are obviously the "strong" forces, and vice versa. The voice-over does not mention this inconsistency. He just goes on like the Iraqi Minister of Information saying that the US Army has been stopped, while ignoring the sound of US tanks behind him. This show is compete crappola. And you swallowed this?

The voice-over then declares, that this proves that CO2 leads temperature, and that CO2 "amplifies" the weak orbital forces. Come again? Boing? Boing? But the graph clearly displayed that temperature leads CO2. Where on the graph does it display this fabled "reinforcing and amplification"?

The world weary voice-over, who speaks to the audience like an oracle talking down to a retarded child, then asks "Could the authors make it any clearer?" Answer, yeah, they sure could. Because nothing they say, or self righteously declare, conforms to logic or observed reality.

Dear Mr Ant. You can't just look at evidence uncritically as you obviously have done. I think that this presentation is slick and well made. It was meant to appeal to people who want to believe this HIGW malarkey so much, that they will turn off their critical analysis circuits and be mesmerized into accepting whatever bunkum some politically motivated Elmer Gantry tells them

LEGO

When are you going to provide evidence for your comments?
Proxies covering past eras and proxies covering temperature over the last 130 years knock out your ramblings. Ioe cores provide another line of objective data.
Please provide some evidence for what you right.

I won’t respond until you provide meaningful references.

Hi Mr Ant.

You will be ecstatic to know that President Trump, who has already called HIGW "a money making hoax", is empanelling a scientific committee to examine the evidence and figure out, once and for all, who is right and who is wrong. Or said another way, who is lying, and who is telling the truth.

And gee willackers, Margaret, guess which side is screaming it's head off trying to stop the committee being created? Yep, it is your side who don't want their "facts" and their "adjusted" temperature readings scrutinised, then held up to the light for the public to see. Do you think it might be because they have something to hide?

One notable critic is Bill Nye ("the science guy"), who has stated that the only fair debate you can have over HIGW, is with 3 deniers and 97 climate scientists. He has also called for sceptics to be jailed as "war criminals." I am glad he is on your side and not mine.

Anyhoo, your latest tactic of making me read your links backfired, because I know enough about the principles of climate change now to pick out the BS. The two links you gave to me were so bad they were funny. If you would like a much better pro HIGW site to get your facts wrong, then would I recommend "A History of Earth's Climate"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbnlTX7IjUA&t=7s.

At least the presenter on this site is smart enough to understand that solar related "orbital" (or Malenkovich) factors are the primary drivers of recurring and regular global warming and cooling. Which kinda blows the reasoning of your last link right out of the water. If you Alarmists want to stop the increasing public scepticism of your new religion, the first thing you should do is get your stories straight.

Lastly, if you are interested in understanding the sceptics case, the best site I have found on youtube (only yesterday) is "Don Easterbrook Crashes the Global warming Party." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSVkSCN_hLQ

It is 1.5 hours long, but the good professor addresses everything I know about the sceptics case.

LEGO

I said I wouldn't respond until you sent a reference.
In amongst all the references I have provided are pretty well most of the points he made. Right at the very end he says we have made a mess. We are meant to be in a cooling stage he said (Dan Britt). He also acknowledges our period is warmer than the Roman era and Medieval period.
Scientists acknowledge that temperature has been warmer and cooler in past eras.
Check what happened during the "great dying".

Of interest, when the asteroid hit Mexico and dinosaurs were wiped out, artefacts have not been found world wide. In other words, the asteroid hitting Earth is only part of the story it would seem.
LEGO you ridicule anything that doesn't fit into your opinion, yet, provide a reference that doesn't fully support your view.

Proxies and ice cores!

Good try, LEGO.

To Ant. Don't hold your breathe.

ant wrote..."Moore said of glyphosate, "You could drink a whole quart of it, and it won't hurt you." The interviewer then offered to actually bring him a glass of the stuff to drink on camera. Moore refused."

BUT he didn't include a link - always a dead give-away that he's trying, in his own utterly inept way, to pull a fast one.

Here's the rest of the quote....

"In the minds of the anti-glyphosate community, this was proof that the "glyphosate is safe" crowd was lying.

In reality, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt; however, commercial glyphosate preparations typically include other additives, such as surfactants (think soap) to make the target plants more readily absorb the compound. These surfactants can be more toxic than the glyphosate itself. Unless Moore could verify that the stuff being offered to him was in fact nothing but pure glyphosate and water, he was right to refuse. Also, just because it's safe to drink doesn't mean it tastes good.

Since the time of that infamous interview, others have gone on to drink glyphosate on camera."

Poor poor ant is revealed yet again to have zero ethics.

Would someone who is so convinced that he's right feel the need to lie and obfuscate so much and so often?

mhaze

This is the video I watched about Moore refusing to drink glyphosate, after stating it is perfectly safe. A bit like saying that asbestos dust is safe, because it won't kill you. Neither will kill you in the immediate future. Cancers can take a long time to develop, the causal factors are not always known. My guess is mhaze you would not drink a glass of glyphosate.

You can apologise for making an untrue accusation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

The video is titled "Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass" In the end when offered a glass of it his response is "I'm not stupid."

Being abusive suggests you have nothing to offer.

Yeah ant, I figured you wouldn't have the ethics or the gumption to admit an error and move on. As always you try to hide a lie/error with a bigger lie/error. (Table 4 anyone?)

So here's what you now want us to believe - you watched a youtube presentation and then just wrote down the events in your own words.

And by sheer chance the words you used to describe the incident were the exact same words used to describe it on this website.... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(Greenpeace)

Not just nearly the same words, or a similar phrase or two. But the exact same words, phraseology, syntax, punctuation, and sentencing.

Frankly ant, that you'd expect anyone to buy that is hilarious. It has even less credibility than your fictitious Maths lecturer - and that had ero credibility.

FFS, what a dill.

Latest IPCC weather prediction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICE6l-5qTYE

IPPC notable makes future weather predictions and really blasts a sneery sceptic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF_Krra2J3k

Hey Ant. I have got another pro HIGW youtube presentation for you. This guy is very entertaining and he damned near convinced me I was wrong. You will love him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM&t=442s

mhaze
You stated ..."Not just nearly the same words, or a similar phrase or two. But the exact same words, phraseology, syntax, punctuation, and sentencing."

Yes it was a quote, go through many of my comments and you will find I have quoted sentences, and shown that to be the case with appropriate quotation marks. These are quotation marks mhaze ..."".

ant,

Ah, so it was a quote from the site I mentioned. So why did you at attempt to deny it? and why, when you posted that quote, did you leave out all the parts that made it clear that the point you were trying to make was fallacious? Selective quoting shows that you really knew you were wrong but hoped to sneak it past.

What a dill....Table 4 confirms it.

What amuses me is that ant (and he's not alone) is prepared to play the fool rather than admit an error.

mhaze

Moore stated himself something like ... "do you think I'm stupid", when challenged to drink glyphosate, and stormed off muttering as film clip shows. The later words did not match his reaction. He had been saying that he would drink glyphosate, and would not when challenged, the sensible thing to do. Nobody can say that glyphosate has no impact on a persons health over a lifetime.

So no admission that you doctored a quote and then tried, in your own inept fashion, to hide it.

About what I'd expect.

mhaze, exactly what quote are you accusing ant of doctoring?

Original and doctored version please.

BTW the real problem with glyphosate is not that it's toxic but that it's carcinogenic - see https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-monsanto-papers/10352384

(still much safer than most other herbicides though)

"exactly what quote are you accusing ant of doctoring?"

Not accusing...proving. He's not even trying to deny it now.

"Original and doctored version please."

Read the thread.

"BTW the real problem with glyphosate is not that it's toxic but that it's carcinogenic"

Well it is if you're prepared to ignore the established science...

http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

The anti-GMO crowd made as big a kerfuffle as they could of glyphosate because it doesn't hurt broad-acre GM crop strains engineered for it. If they can get everyone weeding mechanically or using other spot approaches it levels the playing-field for non-GM crops and hits Monsanto.

Used safely and sparingly on food crops there's nothing wrong with the stuff. Biodegradable detergent is needed to disperse it, which is hardly calamitous to human health. GM allows us to adequately feed the world but the Malthusians are happier if that doesn't happen.

Banning stuff that might be injurious to human health if we bathed in it is ridiculous. mhaze's link tells some of the story. Glyphosate in breast-milk is another debunked furphy, along with other confections.

My Green local council stopped using glyphosate on roads and footpaths, as well as more selective herbicides in parks. Now we spend an absolute monza on steam weed control.

mhaze

You state:
"Not accusing...proving. He's not even trying to deny it now."

You have a comprehension problem, you do not understand the meaning of:

Moore stated himself something like ... "do you think I'm stupid", when challenged to drink glyphosate, and stormed off muttering as film clip shows. The later words did not match his reaction. He had been saying that he would drink glyphosate, and would not when challenged, the sensible thing to do. Nobody can say that glyphosate has no impact on a persons health over a lifetime.

You use the tried old trick of attacking the person rather than the issue.
I'm yet to see any evidence based material from deniers. Deniers responding here do so from the comfort of their homes, they do not go out into the field to observe or collect data.

There has been nothing of substance has come from deniers.

"You use the tried old trick of attacking the person rather than the issue."

Not at all. The issue is that you acted dishonestly in doctoring a quote to try to make a point. From the full article you quoted only the part that suited your aims - that Moore refused the drink - while deceptively hiding the part which explained why he would and should have done that. Even you realised this was wrong when you initially tried to claim that you hadn't quoted from that article.

Might I offer a tip. You, for the most part, try, in your own inept way, to support your claims with links. Often the link doesn't say what you think it says (eg Table 4) but at least there's a link. So when you make a claim that isn't supported by a link (such as your initial claim about Moore), its a dead give-away that you're trying to hide something. Maybe you should try to rectify that problem.

To Ant

Anti HIGW scientists do not need to do any research to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming. As the proponents of the hypothesis, the onus is entirely upon the pro HIGW "scientists" to prove that it does. In any case, which government gives money to sceptics to prove what the governments do not want to hear? All of the massive amounts of research funds goes entirely to the Alarmists. And who vets the "peer reviews"? The Alarmists. I can give you youtube sites where sceptics have told that they can not even get into peer reviewed journals for that very reason.

Proof of this was the climategate email from Phil Jones to Michael Manne.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Michael (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow- even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is."

Got that, Ant? If scientific papers contradict HIGW, the Alarmists will cook the books to keep them out of public scrutiny. And you trust these people? Whatever they are, they are not scientists.

Last quote from Conservative MP and physicist Peter Lilley.

"The day that the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation we have ever passed, committing us to cut our emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds, it snowed in London in October, for the first time in 74 years."

The HIGW ship is sinking, and it is time for the rats and the ants to leave. In the usual course of events, where the younger generation always blames the older generation for leaving the world a complete mess, future generations will curse Ant and say to him "How could you have been so stupid as to believe that rubbish which bankrupted our economy"?


ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT CO2 DOES CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICE6l-5qTYE

As the flea well knows,Carter pointed out the attempts to disrupt the work of honest scientists, who showed that warming was natural and the argument for human causation was invalid.The climate gate emails show the attempts of the fraud promoters, like Jones, and Mann to derail the valid science
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/.
The peer reviewed paper by Mclean, deFreitas and Carter showed “ENSO variation accounts for a very large portion of the variability in global temperature, thus leaving little room for a substantial human influence on temperature.”
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2010/03/bob-carter-john-mclean/

There is no science to show any measurable human causation in global warming.

I'll see your Potholer 54 Mr Ant, and raise you..

Youtube. Debunking The Debunker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&feature=youtu.be

mhaze,
'Tis unclear from reading the thread, so again I ask you:
exactly what quote are you accusing (or "proving") ant of doctoring?

Re glyphosate, it's not a case of ignoring the science, but of distrusting some studies because of potential bias. Under these conditions, I'd also be suspicious of metaanalyses. The appropriate thing to look at would be glyphosate exposure in NH Lymphoma patients compared to in the general population.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
I agree banning glyphosate would be ridiculous - indeed I mentioned that it's still much safer than other herbicides. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the risks - doing so results in safety precautions being ignored, exacerbating the problem.

The climate fraud promoters spread the lie that 97% of climate scientists support the fraud promoter’s lie about human causation:”Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#67993c803f9f
The flea supports the climate fraud, with no science to support his position. which rests on dishonesty and fraud

Lawrence Journal-World. Sunday, March 11, 1979.

The Globe Is Cooling.

"One thing is indisputable, the world has been cooling off since WW2, something like 1 degree Fahrenheit. But that might be just a temporary swing in the climate. Dr J. Murray Mitchell, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, says that the world has been cooling off in the long run. On average, it has cooled down by something like 1 degree Fahrenheit or half a degee Celsius, and that cooling began about WW2."

The Canberra Times Glaciers Grow in Norway. July 18, 1963. AAP Reuter.

Norways glaciers are in the process of becoming thicker again after 200 years of gradually melting down, according to Glaciologist Oleg Liestol.

New York Times Thursday, January 5, 1978.

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30 Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere.

CIA report. OPR-401 August 1974.

There is, moreover, a consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is undergoing a cooling trend.

Geology Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook. submission to Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change.

"There was a period of cooling from 1880 to 1915, from 1915 to 1945 the climate warmed, and then it cooled again from 1945 to 1977. Then it warmed again from 1977 to 1999. And since 1999 it has cooled again, not a lot, but slightly."

Since we were talking about Patrick Moore, its interesting how Google have set about making him an unperson.

http://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/

And they communism is dead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

The flea reminds us that he has no concept of science, and no idea of the concept of relevance, but that will not prevent his posting of irrelevant material, when asked to give any reference to science showing measurable human causation of climate change.
Until he does, and there is no such science, the flea is a blatant climate fraud supporter.
He even draws attention to his dishonesty by using the scurrilous, invalid term, “deniers”, when referring to the propagators of valid science which exposes the promoters , like the flea, of climate fraud.

Hey Mhaze. How do you get your hot buttons to work? Mine never do. I copy and paste from the site heading onto the OLO site with my written response,, and zilch.

LEGO,

You need to remove the 's' from the 'https' part of the website after you paste it into your text eg you linked as follows....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&feature=youtu.be

if instead you set the link as follows...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&feature=youtu.be it will work.

note...'http' instead of 'https'.

By way of background. When the OLO site was written the standard URL header was 'http' so OLO's software treats that as the indicator that the entry is a website. Later it became standard to add the 's' ( which indicates 'secure') but OLO's software doesn't recognise that as a website.

So remove the 's' and all will be well.

Thanks ma-a-a-te. I will try it out. Here goes nuthin'

Absolute proof that CO2 induced climate change is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICE6l-5qTYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF_Krra2J3k

Hey!. It works! Your a genius Mhaze.

" Your a genius Mhaze."

And you're an excellent judge.

Global warming, according to the fraud promoters, has not stopped
"You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?"
By Aaron Brown
April 24, 2018
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html