'Time for even the ants to flee the sinking HIGW ship.'

In a day ruled by emotion and narrative I doubt it Lego.

mhaze

You are a comedian. Page 6 of the Exxon report describes exactly what I had been saying about Figure 3.
From the Exxon '82 report, which is hardly ambiguous .. "Figure 3 summarises the projected growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations based on the Exxon 21st Century Study High-Growth scenario. As well as an estimate of the average global temperature increase which might then occur above the current temperature."

Thank you for your abuse, you clearly have nothing sensible to say.

As stated, I had a Maths teacher look at the graph.

The Reports scientists were putting out before denier-scam, are uncomfortable for deniers.

You still haven't commented about 1998 either, as requested..

You have not provided any references to back you up which is a telling sign you have nothing to offer.

Lego

Can you produce a reference about Dr Mann having lost a Court case, it sounds like false news. Dr Mann's work was checked by a science peak body after complaints. It is hardly surprising complaints were made on the basis of denier views being shown to be wrong. Do you not understand that sediments, rock composition, coral, tree rings, ice cores provide data about what had happened at a particular time in the past. Did you watch the short video about the Medieval era I've provided?

Research scientists, whether studying medicial matters, climate, chemistry, physics or anything else are paid professional salaries; but, they need funds to progress their research. We would not be able to communicate online without research having being completed in the past.

Conspiracy theories might seem right, but on further appraisal are shown to be wrong.

He said, they said someone said;
All very complicated. Herewith a simple question.

Why is it that the temperature rises then the CO2 rises ?

That question gets asked but never answered.

Struth Ant. The way you go on, you present yourself as some sort of HIGW expert, with the facts at your finger tips. And you did not even know that Michael Manne shot himself in the foot by suing climate scientist Tim Ball for libel, when Ball said that Manne's Hockey stick graph was an easily refuted fraud?

Manne probably thought that the mere threat of a hideously expensive lawsuit would shut Tim Ball up. But after 8 years of delay, Manne got his court case and Ball won it easily. Here is Tim Ball speaking about his victory over Michael Manne's "rigorously peer reviewed work" which he was very reluctant to share with the Ball's defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug

And for your edification, Ball also sued columnist Mark Steyn, when Steyn wrote a 77 word blog saying pretty much the same thing as Tim Ball. Here is Mark Steyn using his world famous humour and incisive wit to tell an entire meeting hall full of real scientists about his coming court case with Manne. When you can laugh at your opponents, you know you have them beat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

You may sincerely believe in HIGW. And the reason for that is, I strongly suspect, because you have been conditioned believe that supporting such a cause is what intelligent, virtuous, and far seeing young progressives should support. So you do just that, because you aspire to join those who portray themselves as some sort of brahmin caste of mensa progressives.

But if you have any intelligence at all, then lock yourself in a dark room, turn on your critical analysis circuit, and consider this. Any ideology which uses force and intimidation to shut up it's critics is not worth a brass razoo. The climate skeptics are winning because we are on the side of science, and our people are the really smart guys. You know, the ones you aspire to associate yourself with? The crowd you are presently supporting are the humourless, pontificating, writ throwing, social climbing socialists, more concerned about their grants, stipends, social position, and virtue signaling, than telling the truth.

Lego

Regarding your videos.

Whether Ball won a case against Dr Mann makes no difference to a science that has been about almost 200 years.

Heartlands is a purveyor of pseudo science.

So people trained in medical science processing epidemiological data related to climate change, do not practice science as per your suggestion.
Between 2013 and 2014, Powell et al studied 24,000 papers from peer reviewed journals. Literally only a handful were published by skeptical scientists. Not much data is being created by skeptical scientists in other words.

Katharine Hayhoe et al reviewed 38 studies created by skeptical scientists, they found that they could not replicate the science presented by skeptical scientists.

Ideology is not part of science; from comments written here, those criticising science are very conservative in their political views I would venture.
As stated much of what deniers rely on amounts to misrepresentation even fraud. I have given examples of misreprentation and fraud. The examples relating to Dr Hanson, Dr Alley, and Fredrik Ljungqvist.

Have noticed how few references are provided by climate science deniers, it is for a good reason.

Bazz

WUWT is a pseudo science site, Bazz. Anthony Watts is not a scientist. It had been WUWT that had misrepresented Dr Alley.
I understand that WUWT is the site that first commented on temperature rises then the CO2 rises. Check it yourself, go to science, it isn't true.

The fact that a respected climate scientist, who has been telling anybody who will listen for 30 years, that HIGW is a hoax, and who has been sued by no less than three IPCC luminaries for endangering their cushy little jobs, won the very court case insisted upon by the IPCC's chief propagandist, is extremely important. So much for Michael Manne's "rigorously peer reviewed research." The "24,000 scientific papers published in scientific journals" which Manne must have used to support his case did not seem to impress the jury.

Next, you are trying the old "baffle them with bullsheet" ploy, by submitting unverifiable data published by a woman who said that "she could not replicate the science published by the "handful" of skeptical scientists." Well, Tim Ball still won the court case because his evidence was obviously a lot more credible than the Gaia worshipping, government research funds seeking, and career protecting alarmists.

And let us get something absolutely clear. People who oppose the HIGW hoax are not "deniers." Nobody denies that climate changes. Nobody denies that atmospheric CO2 emissions are increasing, or that it could cause rises in global temperatures. The real question has always been if the human component of CO2 rise is so significant that it endangers human civilization, to the extent that Western civilization must bankrupt our economies to try and prevent it.

The first IPCC's "Working Group Report 1." stated that climate research and modeling was "chaotic and non linear" and that climate was "impossible to predict." For the last twenty years it has been predicating climate catastrophe. Now, it's latest report plainly states that climate is changing "largely as a result of human activities." THAT is the problem. Prove it.

Manne and the IPCC can't prove it and they know it. But they have plenty of useful fools like your good self who so desperately want to believe it is true. All we have to do to prevent catastrophe and create Utopia is to stop eating meat, give all our wealth to the poor, become poor ourselves, create a World Government, and embrace socialism