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?