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