To Ant.

Thank you for submitting your HIGW report.

Criterion 1 graph shows the close relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. But your author states that "We do not know if carbon dioxide causes temperature to rise; temperature causes carbon dioxide to rise;" BONG. We do know that it is Temperature which drives CO2 levels.

Criterion 2. Right, look at the graph. Sceptics say that temperatures rose from 1880 to 1945 (The Grapes of Wrath), fell from 1945 to 1977, and rose to 1998, and is now falling. Except for the last years, that almost exactly matches the graph.

Criterion 3. Graph 1 shows that the last 3 warming periods were warmer than the present one. Graph 2 just tells us that the planet warmed from 1880. The last bit from 1998 to today is in hot dispute.

Criterion 4. The graph is fraudulent and out of date because it does not even show the cooling which occurred 1945 to 1977, or from 1998 to present. It is also implying that CO2 drives temperature, which is demonstrably wrong.

Criterion 5. We know that as temperatures rise, sea levels rise, and CO2 increases in lockstep as oceans release CO2. The fact that reflected IR radiation is in sync with these three oscillations caused by rising temperatures is to be expected. And this bloke is a scientist? Standards must be dropping.

Criterion 6. A Swedish scientist figured out that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that humans releasing more into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise. Fair point. But the unknown question is, what specific concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause any significant rise in temperatures?

Criterion 7. Consensus. According to Emiritus Professor of Geology Don Easterbrook about the "97% consensus". ""A graduate student in Indiana or Illinois, sent out 10,257 questionares to climate scientists. He got 3,146 back. Of those, he selected 77 or 79, I am not quite sure of those numbers, that he handpicked out of those responses. And he asked those people "do you think that CO2 causes climate change? All but 2 said "yes.""

LEGO

Criteria 1, Strength... Why do you think CO2, methane and other gases are called greenhouse gases? First postulated by Fourier in the 1820s. Do you not understand that experiments can be conducted to display how CO2 picks up warmth. NASA informs us that temperature has risen currently 10x faster than in last million years. Back computing using data already known supports anthropogenic climate change.
Criteria 2, Consistency ...the article provided 178 measures not using thermometers to show consistency with what is happening. Including plankton shells. Unmistakeable warming over the last 130 years consistent with temperature measure from thermometers. Dropping information that does not suit! Comprehension alert.
Criteria 3, Specificity … NASA informs us that temperature has risen currently 10x faster than in last million years. You admit that the 1998 datum used by deniers is garbage.
Criteria 4, Temporality … Isotopes of CO2 can be identified as to its source. When there was a large increase in CO2 produced by industrialisation temperature increased accordingly. To claim a graph is fraudulent you need to provide evidence, it uses 2 Y axes.
Criteria 5, Dose Response … Levels of CO2 follow the seasons which can be seen from the Mauna Loa Observatory. Temperature follows in same way. As oceans take up 70% of Earth’s surface they tend to hold temperature increase more so than land mass. Though LEGO your observation fits more into anthropogenic climate change than denier claims.
Criteria 6, Plausibility … Comprehension, or forgetfulness is a problem here for you, LEGO. Remember the scientists working for fossil fuel corporations in the 1970s? Fourier 1820s was first to identify greenhouse effect. We would not survive without greenhouse gases.
Criteria 7, Coherence … Any scientist able to knock down the science of anthropogenic climate change would get their names up in lights and gain recognition that Einstein has. Hawking, while not quite having the status of Einstein, certainly believed in anthropogenic climate. There are several studies which have analysed consensus.
Criteria 8, Experiment … Very difficult when we only have one planet, aerosols present an interesting factor.

To Ant.

C1. Because they warm the atmosphere. And your point is....?

C2. Whatever the methodology or subject, the results of this research was demonstrated on the graph. That graph just happens to match the graphs which sceptics say was the true values for temperature from 1880 upwards, except for the last bit of it.

C3. But that is not what your second graph displays. It shows four warming periods, 100,000 years apart, each as steep as the rest. The previous rises were obviously independent of human released CO2. What we are seeing is an almost clockwork repetition of a cycle of warming periods. The only thing different about the latest warming period, is that it occurred after civilisation began using fossil fuels.

C4 Oh, now I get what you mean by this constant reference to the "1998 denialist whatever." You are saying that the planet is still warming? Gee that's going to be hard to sell. What with Moscow just emerging from 10 feet of snow, Europe emerging from record snow, Britain's worst snow storm in 50 years, snow in the USA reaching the Gulf of Mexico, snow in Cairo and Tel Aviv, ski resorts thriving everywhere, arctic ice reappearing, and glaciers growing again.

C5 You seem to be suggesting that CO2 leads climate? So, what caused the three previous pre human warming periods, which were warmer than this one, even though CO2 levels have been decreasing to their lowest levels before humans rectified that? Was it three previously unknown races of humans or aliens, who industrialised and started pumping out CO2? Then all three went extinct?

C6. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. You seem to be suggesting that since a bunch of scientists working for the oil industry cried "We'll all be rooned", that we must believe them.

C7. If there are "several studies" showing a clear consensus of climate scientists, then post them up and let me pick them apart.

LEGO

I did send send a reply earlier to wrong article:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20192&page=4

LEGO, every hear about weather variability, extremes in weather were projected into the future by climate scientists in the 1970s. For your Russian, and US examples, for the last four or five years there have been similar circumstances. Yet at the end of the year, global temperatures were shown to be warming. This is the huge but, trend lines are against anything you suggest, backed up by 178 proxies which supported temperature measure over the last 130 years.
You have displayed ignorance in relation to some areas, your logic is out of whack in relation to trying to create a datum year for 2019 when we are not quite a quarter of the way through 2019. A bit of riddle for you, there are countervailing temperatures already, in most likelihood they will knock out your comments anyway. What you wrote about is called “noise”, noise gets cancelled out in the long term.

You have no arguments about proxies, LEGO.

You can find references to consensus studies yourself.
If you believe you can pick climate science apart, then you display a great deal of hubris. You have cherry picked the reference I’ve provided, and ignored salient points.

Remember proxies and ice cores, LEGO.

LEGO,

On your Easterbrook story....

Yes, about 10000 scientists were surveyed. 3000 responded. When the numbers were run they showed about 80% agreed with the survey questions. That didn't suit the needs of these so-called scientists so they decided to exclude groups which they'd previously included (somehow the alarmists think this is valid). So they excluded groups like solar scientists (what would they know about the climate? - it's not as though the big yellow thing has anything to do with climate!!). Geologists also got booted. Finally they got the answer they wanted (remember, this is how climate science works!!) and found 75 of 77 (of the original 10000) who agree with the survey questions.

And what were the questions?
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Nowhere did they try to define 'significant'. Some of those who answered said later they thought 10% was significant.

Now, most so-called deniers would answer yes to those questions. I certainly would. Nowhere does it suggest that warming is bad or dangerous or will continue. But that is how it was used by propagandists like Gore and Obama.

It was all a con to hook the innumerate.

Which brings us to ant who is back claiming that its all about CO2. But earlier in this thread he told me that an 8% increase in CO2 would have no effect on temperatures. To be fair that was based on his utter misreading of a graph and his innumerate inability to understand the numbers. Still he was adamant that he was right. So its a little strange to see him go from claiming rises in cO2 have no effect on temperatures to its all about CO2. Well that's ant for you.

Table 4, ant, Table 4. Always remember that Table 4 reveals you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

To Ant.

I watched that youtube presentation of yours, and it actually made me laugh.

The show presented 3 "orbital" factors that create climate change, but called these 3 "orbital" factors "weak."

Next, came a graph, which once again, shows temperature leading CO2. The voice over even states this, saying "Orbital factors begin a long, slow warming trend which causes outgassing.....reinforcing and amplifying the weak orbital forces." Point 1. If "weak orbital forces" initiated the warming climate change, then they are definitely not "weak." And since the voice-over has inadvertently admitted that these "weak orbital forces" are the initiators of the warming, then global warming is definitely not caused by greenhouse gases, are they?

Point 2. If Orbital forces are "weak" and greenhouse gases "strong" then how come the rising graph suddenly takes a dive, which the "strong" forces then follow? Answer? The "weak" forces are obviously the "strong" forces, and vice versa. The voice-over does not mention this inconsistency. He just goes on like the Iraqi Minister of Information saying that the US Army has been stopped, while ignoring the sound of US tanks behind him. This show is compete crappola. And you swallowed this?

The voice-over then declares, that this proves that CO2 leads temperature, and that CO2 "amplifies" the weak orbital forces. Come again? Boing? Boing? But the graph clearly displayed that temperature leads CO2. Where on the graph does it display this fabled "reinforcing and amplification"?

The world weary voice-over, who speaks to the audience like an oracle talking down to a retarded child, then asks "Could the authors make it any clearer?" Answer, yeah, they sure could. Because nothing they say, or self righteously declare, conforms to logic or observed reality.

Dear Mr Ant. You can't just look at evidence uncritically as you obviously have done. I think that this presentation is slick and well made. It was meant to appeal to people who want to believe this HIGW malarkey so much, that they will turn off their critical analysis circuits and be mesmerized into accepting whatever bunkum some politically motivated Elmer Gantry tells them