Reflux asks:” why on earth are you quoting Tim Ball? ?”
Perhaps because he has just won a case against the climate fraud promoter Michael Mann, who failed to produce to the Court the material grounding his fraudulent “hockey stick”.
On what basis do you ask, Reflux? You posted lies about Professor Robert Carter when you had no basis to criticise his flawless
science, then you ran away to hide when questioned about your lies. You have still not answered my question as to the source or your lies about Carter.
Your ill bred reaction has been to ignore the relevant question, which is your habit when your ignorance and dishonesty place you in the untenable situation in which you have found yourself

Dear Leo,

Fruity fruit loops old chap but oh well why not.

You wrote;

“Perhaps because he has just won a case against the climate fraud promoter Michael Mann, who failed to produce to the Court the material grounding his fraudulent “hockey stick”.”

What? No he didn't. Stop making things up.

Now you know we have already discussed that Robert Carter wasn't a climate scientist. Remember?

“Dear Leo Lane,

Come on mate time to give it a rest.

Joanne Nova is another who never claimed bob was a climate scientist even in her eulogy of him.

Even one of OLO's most prolific climate sceptics Peter Lang labelled him as a “non-climate scientist”

“Bob Carter did an enormous amount to help save us all from stupidity. He was one offour non-climate scientists who convinced Senator Steve Fielding (the only engineer in Parliament) that the climate scientists’ projections of catastrophic human caused global warming were not based on sound objective, analysis of the relevant evidence and were highly suspect”
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/

Bob Carter was not a climate scientist to anyone except yourself. This mate puts it fairly in the realm of delusional behaviour. For you to keep saying I slandered him by saying he wasn't is really loony stuff.

Put it to bed my friend before you are strapped to one.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:04:29 AM”

Why on earth should we go over it all again?

To Ant

If 31,478 US scientists publically put their names on a petition saying that they do not accept HIGW, then the science is definitely not settled. So, if climate alarmists claim that "the science is settled" because 97% of climate scientists, who's careers and continued employment is predicated upon agreeing with HIGW, then we must agree they are right? Please submit any similar petition from your side of the fence showing tens of thousands of scientists agreeing that human generated CO2 is largely responsible for the latest warming period that the Earth is presently experiencing.

In the last 8 thousand years, the Earth has warmed 6 times, and cooled five times. How come human induced CO2 played no role in the first five warming periods?

You were right about your second premise. Only one climate scientist claimed that the arctic would be free of ice by 2013. But that was enough for the BBC to unquestionably publicize give his stupid claim like it was God's holy writ. No skepticism. No opposing point of view. Like the "stolen generations" fraud, it was unquestionably reported as undeniable fact. And like every other idiotic prediction made by your side, it was yet another one that was subsequently disproven.

Meteorologist and skeptic John Coleman has claimed that for almost thirty years, climate skeptics have been treated by the press as simply kooks, and most media simply refused to interview them. But any HIGW scientist can say any blithering nonsense, and the media hangs on their every word.

Now we come to your latest claim that anti HIGW organizations are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Natural Gas donated US $26 million dollars to the Sierra Club because the SC wants to shut down coal fired power stations. And that is in the interests of Natural Gas. HIGW organizations are lavishly funded by government and the UN, while skeptic organizations rely mainly on public donations, and are not in the same league when it comes to funding. Professor Judith Curry said that no government has given any research money to skeptics.

To Steelredux.

Yes, you really are a "sucker for punishment."

You claim that Tim Ball is an idiot. You base that claim on the fact that Ball made a derogatory opinion about climate alarmist Andrew Weaver, which Weaver claimed was defamatory and actionable. Weaver sued Ball and lost. The judge agreed that what Ball said was not defamatory. And your premise is that Ball is the idiot?

Now, you have agreed that there is such a thing as natural climate variability. And that the Earth goes through regular progressions of glaciations and warming periods. You appear to have agreed with Professor Plimer that past warming periods were independent of CO2 levels. (correct me if I am wrong on that)

You have admitted that all of the previous warming periods going back since forever were the result of factors other than human induced CO2 levels.

OK, we are again (right on schedule) in another warming period. But this time you claim that this particular one can only be caused by human released CO2. And you have no proof of that extraordinary claim. And the "scientists" you believe, who have vested interests in making that claim have no proof, but you believe it anyway.

As Spock would say, "But Captain, that is illogical."

We both agree that CO2 rises can warm the atmosphere, and we both agree that this can be a bad thing. But nobody can say just how much CO2 can raise global temperatures even one tenth of one degree.

The problem is, that climate scientists are predicting utter catastrophe unless everybody in the western world (excepting countries like China and India) immediately make like hobbits and live in a post industrial world. But so far, all of their predictions about dams not filling, the polar caps melting, the oceans rising 10 metres by 2030, etc, etc, have simply not come to pass.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole HIGW premise is greatly exaggerated, and the reasonable solution is to investigate the viability of using alternative energy sources, while not destroying our economy in the process.

LEGO

I provided a reference earlier from another source quoting the Judge in relation to Tim Ball. The quote from the Judge was quoted as being equally unfavourable, pretty well stating that what Ball presented to the Court was completely wrong, it couldn't be taken seriously.
A further quote from SteeleRedux's reference .. "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."

Funny how when getting to the nub of political affiliations; it is the conservatives writing here who display their affiliations.

Leo

The hockey stick has been shown in a number of studies post Dr Mann's original study. There have been a number of investigations in relation to it.

A compilation of many proxies supporting the hockey stick:

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788#abstract

A summary of the report:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/07/12/scientists-compile-most-complete-climate-curve-of-the-last-2000-years/#2b4bb2146f1

The flea has referenced a dataset, and a report on it..
The document itself announces that there are many limitations on its use: The current database includes a large number of metadata fields to facilitate the intelligent reuse of the data. Table 1 (available online only) lists a subset of information in a single-page format. Supplementary Table 1 includes additional metadata fields with critical information to convey the appropriate use of each dataset"”
This is typical of the flea’s demonstration of his complete inability to grasp the concept of science, resulting in his posting of endless irrelevant material. He is also incapable of understanding “irrelevance”, so that 99.9% of his posts are of no consequence