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?