To Mr Ant.

You keep chanting the same old mantra, just like Ozspen who thinks that the universe was created in six days.

I googled "1998 denier datum point" and all I got was a plethora of photos with titles such as "RSS TLT", "McShane and Wyner 2010", and "ELC traces where valid muscle offset datum was average." If you can make sense of any of that, then give me a précis and I will comment on it.

Yair, Rear Admiral Tilley was a HIGW sceptic who changed his mind. Professor Currey was a HIGW alarmist who changed her mind. Sceptics 1. Alarmists 1. What did you hope to prove by that?

You are submitting "evidence" from a Dr Burger which I can not validate or refute. As a non scientist, I rely on scientists presenting the facts to me so that I can decide which side is telling the truth. Because one side is definitely telling porky pies. Tim Ball said that his best contribution to the debate was his ability to simplify complex concepts so that ordinary people can understand them.

Any doubts I may have harboured about HIGW being a crock has been almost entirely dissipated by Patrick Moore's masterful presentation in that youtube debate.

Patrick's graphs were devastating evidence against HIGW. His main points was that global warming started 300 years ago at the end of the LIA, before industrialisation. That makes sense. Going back 570 million years, he displayed graphs of temperature combined with CO2 levels which showed no correlation between CO2 and global temperature, which cross connects with Professor Plimer's declaration.

The last three Ice ages in the last 100,000 years caused by the Malenkovich cycl,e display gradually reducing temperatures. The Earth is cooling. CO2 was steadily reducing in our atmosphere, to the point that it could have endangered the continued existence of plant life on Earth. He said that the Earth is now greening because of increased CO2, which cross connects with news stories in the media about this very phenomenon.

Dear Lego,

Sorry mate but I would have rated Moore's presentation at about a 2.

It is patently obvious he has no climate credentials unlike the others and was instead just trotting out well honed platitudes so I can see how they may have pushed your buttons however they have lost a lot of currency especially over the last 10 years as people have become more knowledgeable about the impacts of CO2 and global warming.

Even then he was all over the shop. CO2 is apparently a minor contributor to the green house effect – water vapour is far more significant contributor drowning out any effect of CO2 – but increases in water vapour may be contributing to cooling rather than warming – but warming is good as it is pulling us out of a mini ice age. Whew!

He does things like talk about how much more CO2 is held in carbaceous rock than in the atmosphere as though that is some how relevant and look what he does with the graph of CO2 concentrations from here; http://youtu.be/pVXHaSqpsVg?t=3194 when he turns it into a “death of all plants” trend line in the following graph. He does the typical denier trick of taking a shortened (160 mya) peak to make a point not supported by the larger graph.

The bloke is a fraud but I'm happy to discuss any of his points with you. Tell me which one you found the most impressive and we can have a look at it.

LEGO

You really don’t get the significance of the question I keep asking about 1998 do you. It was a major talking point by deniers, why has it disappeared?

When you question the matter of coral proxies, you display your ignorance in relation to past global temperature.

The references I provided by scientists employed by oil corporations in the 1970s talked about conditions becoming more extreme in the future with a rise in greenhouse gases.

Points Dr Moore has made in an article for the Australian:

"Ocean acidification was “invented” in 2005 by climate scientists because global warming wasn’t bad enough.
Because corals and shellfish have been around for millions of years they’ll be fine if the ocean keeps soaking up all the extra CO2.
The oceans have a built-in natural “buffer” that stops the water from swinging around the pH scale (the scale used to measure acid and alkaline states).
People who keep saltwater aquariums at home sometimes add CO2 to the water to make plants grow – therefore, CO2 is great for the oceans.”

These points have been debunked by experts in the field as displayed in reference.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-experts-about-ocean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers

What do you know about canfield oceans, LEGO?

Dr Suzuki, has stated .. “Moore once even claimed glaciers are “dead zones” that we’d be better off without! There’s that twisted logic. It’s true plants don’t grow on glaciers, but microorganisms and other life do.“

http://davidsuzuki.org/story/faulty-logic-fuels-fossil-fools/

Moore said of glyphosate, "You could drink a whole quart of it, and it won't hurt you." The interviewer then offered to actually bring him a glass of the stuff to drink on camera. Moore refused.

The flea says:” Whatever happened to the denier datum year of 1998, deniers no longer use it?. This is a constant refrain of the flea, demonstrating his ignorance of climate. Only a complete ignoramus, lacking all knowledge of climate, would ask such a question. How do you find your way out of bed in the morning, flea? You do not even know that “denier” is not a valid word,in this context, since the fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science to deny.
You cannot refer us to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, since there is no such science. Your ill-bred failure to reply is not just evidence of your failure to behave like a reasonable human being, but evidence of your support of climate fraud, while knowing there is no science to support it.

To Ant.

I have to thank you for getting me interested enough on this topic to do a lot more research. Doing just that, my advice to you as an alarmist is to switch sides now.

I have certainly discovered a lot more material, the most interesting is the scientific dispute involving climate scientists on one hand, and both geologists and astrophysicists on the other. Climate scientists who support HIGW routinely use graphs displaying the close relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, the inference being that CO2 drives temperature. But this is the opposite of what geologists know to be true. To a geologist, it is temperature which drives CO2 levels.

I will tell you how it works. The oceans hold 40-50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the oceans warm, they outgas and release more CO2 into the atmosphere. When they cool, they act like a CO2 sink and they absorb it. Geologists say that the graphs which HIGW advocating climate scientists use to "prove" that CO2 drives climate, is being deliberately misread, and that this interpretation is being fed to students.

I also learned that the UK's socialist preaching Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a brother who is a leading climate sceptic and an astrophysicist. Piers Corbin advise to those seeking answers as to whether whatever proportion of climate scientists support HIGW is to "follow the money."

Lastly, comes this notable warning from President Eisenhower which appears to support the idea that what we are seeing in HIGW is a massive fraud.

President Eisenhower.

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract virtually becomes a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in giving scientific discovery and research the respect that we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific and technological elite.

LEGO

You are joking in relation to changing sides, you have not provided the evidence to do so. You are not able to make any comment about the 1998 datum point deniers used.

When oceans are cool they act as a sink for CO2, they are not able to retain that CO2 when they warm. They have warmed significantly.
Your comprehension is lacking, the Pages Consortium reference provided proxies from around Earth to knock out the denier argument about the Medieval Era being warmer than today. An aggregate of temperature drawn from proxy analysis from both Hemispheres was provided. Deniers have not been able to provide such an analysis.

Deniers have pushed the sun, natural variation, cosmic rays, volcanic action, and a hiatus in temperature increase as answers. Ice cores show that these are not factors. Present your arguments and data to Richard Alley, Jason Box, or Eric Rignot et al (and others).

Something you probably haven’t noticed LEGO, is that there are few skeptical climate scientists. When studies created by skeptical scientists studies have tried to be replicated, it hasn’t worked, a reference had been provided.
A good proportion of those promoting anti anthropogenic climate change are not even scientists; Anthony Watts being an example.They spout off about concepts being wrong, or data has been mishandled; they bring no new data to support their views.

You have pretty well admitted you do not visit “red button” sites which have been referenced. I can honestly say that I have visited many sites that deniers have provided, and found them to provide pseudo science. Graphs often provided have been altered to suit arguments. If a Uni student in any subject was to present a diagram or graph from a reference that they have altered to suit their view point, in all likelihood they would be at least suspended , if not expelled. Examples of fraud have been provided that deniers have used.

In science just saying something is wrong is meaningless, some form of evidence needs to be provided. Lego, you, or anybody else, have not provided any evidence.