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.