In relation to the database, which the flea submitted as proxies in support of Mann’s “science”, he does not indicate where in the paper such support is evidenced, and there appears to be no such support in the referenced paper. Another proof by the flea that he has no idea of science

To Mr Ant.

On the subject of HIGW alarmists Andrew Weaver LOSING his defamation case against Tim Ball, your premise is that the judge made references to Ball making assertions which are not defamatory, because they are plainly ridiculous. I read that as saying that what Ball wrote was sarcastic and humorous and it was not meant to be taken seriously. I could say that Mr Ant is such an awful person "that even his dog doesn't like him." What I wrote is not defamatory, because it is humorous and not serious. But if you are a HIGW freak and you are mortified that one of your enemies just trounced one of your heroes in open court, then you need to find something, anything, to try to make a catastrophe a victory.

On the subject of your "proof" of Manne's infamous "hockey stick" malarkey, let's examine that.

Your first hot button link was written in what bureaucrats call "Diseased English." That is the art of concealing the truth by writing a report which is so long winded, and so full of obsolete wording or professional jargon. that it is simply incomprehensible to an ordinary person.

Your next hot button link was a précis of the first. The interesting thing was the 6 graphs which supposedly displayed that temperatures were constant for 2000 years. But they don't. The graphs show data for historical record, tree rings, coral growth, marine sediment, lake sediment, and glacier ice.

Coral growth shows no data at all for the Medieval Warm Period. So why it was even included is a mystery? Perhaps the alarmists just needed a bit of padding and they hoped that nobody would notice?

"Documents" clearly shows that the MWP was even warmer than today. Gee willackers. Margaret. I suppose that was because the alarmists couldn't find a way to "adjust" that data. Glacial ice equal. Marine sediments significantly warmer. Tree rings colder. And lake sediments colder.

The best your "data" can suggest is that the Medieval Warm Period never happened. But history says it did happen.

LEGO

Your comments about Ball and the case he put before the Judge are very funny. Honestly, what scientist would put a case to a Judge using flawed science?
You have displayed comprehension problems in relation to science, there are many proxies that scientists use to ascertain what has happened in the past in relation to climate.
You say .. "thing was the 6 graphs which supposedly displayed that temperatures were constant for 2000 years. But they don't." You really ought to give up, you you clearly do not comprehend that there are constant variations. Please quote where I have written otherwise.

Deniers argue the Medieval Period was warmer than present times. The temperature increase we are experiencing over pre-Industrial times takes in global temperature not just that of the Northern Hemisphere. Hence proxies from both Hemispheres are required to compare current temperature trends with past temperature trends.

As displayed in references, fraud has been used by deniers to doctor graphs from studies, examples have been given. Remember Fredrik Ljungqvist,documentation shows how part of a graph he displayed had been cut off to try to display the Medieval Period as being warmer than now, a photo from the journal he had his work published in shows very clearly that we are living in warmer times. Do you support such fraud?

You still haven't answered the question about the 1998 datum point that deniers used in relation to temperature. Suddenly it is no longer used, why?

Leo

Those proxies are a nuisance aren't they when they do not support your opinion. Proxies provide data, opinion just provides sophistry.

"A team from the PAGES 2k Consortium (which comprises 98 regional experts from 22 countries) has now compiled the most complete, high-resolution temperature curve to date, using 692 proxy-data records from 648 sites around the world, collected over the years by more than 100 scientists. The records used include tree-rings, ice-layers, layers of sediments and rocks, microfossils, the growth of corals and historic documents. By combining the various archives, the researchers were able to achieve a high temporal resolution - in some cases down to biweekly intervals. The shortest record covers just 50 years, but, the longest record provided data that covers the last 2,000 years."

from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/07/12/scientists-compile-most-complete-climate-curve-of-the-last-2000-years/#5f9f07d76f14

Where are the data sets compiled by skeptical scientists?

Why is the 1998 datum used by deniers no longer used by deniers?

To Mr Ant.

One of the benefits of debating, is the need to seek information to counter ones clued up opponents. So I must thank you for making me do some more research, because I have found this gem on Youtube.

One problem I have experienced is that I have not been able to find any well conducted debates between supporters and skeptics of climate change, so that I could evaluate the veracity of the different opinions in real time.

The debate on Youtube is between prominent alarmists Professor Michael Manne and Rear Admiral Dave Titley USN (retired) opposing prominent climate skeptics Professor Judith Curry and ex Greenpeace leadership member Patrick Moore.

Climate Debate - Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg&t=3391s

The debate is one and a half hours long. But unfortunately loses sound during the last 40 minutes in the Q&A phase, which is a great pity.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would have rated the presentations given by the debaters as

Michael Manne 6.
Dave Titley 7.
Judith Curry 5.
Patrick Moore 10.

I think that the most interesting aspect of the debate is how the alarmists spoke mainly in generalities and doom predictions, while the deniers spoke more in specifics using graphs. Patrick Moore's graphs in particular were devastating to the alarmists claim that CO2 has much effect on climate temperatures.

LEGO

Your points in relation to the debate are immaterial, you have not shown a comprehension of what science involves.

Many of the matters brought up by Drs Curry and Moore, have been discussed in my references provided earlier.
Professor Titley, was an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. He spoke about Naval bases being subject to flooding through climate change. In doing so he cut out much of Dr Curry's argument. Arguments about tidal marks from the past have lost their impact on the basis that water levels in large bodies of water have peaks and troughs. Commonsense suggests that's wrong, it depends on the warmth/coolness of major currents. Miami and some other cities on the Eastern sea board of the USA are subject to flooding even when there has been no precipitation.

Sometime ago I referenced, Dr Burger who took rock samples from the end Permian period to display the Physics and Chemistry that had happened during the "great dying". The sophisticated technology he used has not been available for long. He concluded that the "great dying" provides an analog to what is beginning to happen now.

There is no doubt that CO2 takes up and stores warmth, experiments show that to be the case. Water vapour doesn't last long in the atmosphere, the amount created is subject to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warm atmosphere is able to pick up more water vapour.

It is not as though climate scientists have not taken into account Milankovitch cycles and other cycles (Dan Britt), already referenced.

Both Professor Mann and Professor Titley both displayed material to back up their arguments. Professor Titley displayed a slide of a recent Pentagon Report which discusses climate change risks, apart from other security risks.
You have not answered my question about the 1998 denier datum point. It relates to the credibility of Dr Moore's views on climate also. A non response cuts any comments you make about science to shreds.
Dr Moore latched himself to that datum point. Please answer what happened, to that 1998 argument.