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.