You can check my website if you wish

my-info.co

Quid pro co (Spelling?)

What qualifications do you have that back up your piece on sea-level rise?
Any research? Perhaps some fishing? (sorry, just trying to insert some humor)

The tone of your blog, appears to me, as that of a denialist generating yet another myth to counter ocean scientists' factual views on global warming impact.
Sorry if I have misinterpreted your article.

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2017/01/10/so-how-fast-is-the-sea-really-rising/

And you appear to have closed comments on what is a fairly recent blog??

On Mann, you are not reading the data.
His team won all 6 cases of which 3 were appeals.
Me thinks your mind will not accept that his science was correct, and the hockey stick representation was exactly as the data lay. Yes, real science, real data, understandable but frightening results.

Hi Tony. So you don't want to allow anyone to verify your claims about your identity? The website of course wasn't yours.

My blog piece consisted of a number of graphs generated from the BOM stats which demonstrate that Will Steffen was exaggerating the level of sea rise. The graphs speak for themselves. He specifically mentioned Sydney, so you might like to test what he says against the graph from Botany Bay which shows no acceleration whatsoever, and in fact very little rise at all.

The Mann court cases fall into two categories.

The first category was where the AG of Virginia was trying to access university documents to determine whether Mann was fraudulently gaining funding. He was denied access to the documents. Under the same category the American Tradition Institute was also trying to access documents, and were again unsuccessful. So these are cover-ups by Mann which he's been able to maintain through legal technicalities. Of course, if he had nothing to hide he would allow the authorities access. Perhaps Wikileaks can let us know what is there.

The second category concerns his defamation action against Mark Steyn and others. In these cases the defendants are moving that his actions be struck out. The courts are allowing him to proceed.

What is common between the two categories is that none of them deals with science.

So it appears you deny data when it is presented to you, and you misrepresent (or possibly don't understand) legal cases. Same techniques as many other propagandists, including tobacco lobbysists.

graham,
I am rather taken by your integrity and truthfulness.
The last line on the Author page on my web site re- asks you a question?

What author page? You need to provide a link if there is indeed an author page at all. And I suspect it will be just as anonymous as this. Why don't you give me a link to your Facebook page, or LinkedIn page?

Tony/ant,

That AGW is real is both completely true and utterly beside the point. CO2 traps heat.Every time I breathe out I add to the CO2 levels and therefore create AGW. Every time you write some moronic post you use power which creates CO2 which warms.

The issue isn't the laboratory proof that CO2 warms. The issue is how much does it warm, is that warming good or bad or neither (or both), and what is the extent of the so-called feedbacks to that warming.

That man's activities causes some warming is basically beyond dispute. The dispute is how much. AGW is real. Is CAGW real? That's the issue.

I've explained this to you so often and in such detail that its clear you have neither the intellectual capacity nor intellectual curiosity required to get it. As such I don't intend to waste my time on that any longer. I used to hold some hope that you were merely uninformed, relying solely on alarmist data and that, if given other data, you'd at least come to realise the uncertainties. But you aren't interested in the search for truth.

All this, your current misunderstandings and the monumental errors as 'ant' which were so embarrassing even to someone as clueless as you that you had to retire the nickname, means that your claims for academic credentials are both laughable and truly pathetic.

For those playing at home, just a quick work on #ExxonKnew. Its fallen apart as I told Tony/ant it would more than 1 year ago. You only needed to read the source documents to know this would happen but alas this was beyond the capabilities of Tony/ant. The various state Attorneys-General who launched the Exxon probes are running for cover. Exxon no longer face any serious inquiry. There remains a chance that one or two of the A-Gs will be impeached. The media that fomented the claims have been exposed as in the pay of private environmental groups seeking financial advantage. And the Exxon executive who featured in the claims is now the most powerful diplomate on the planet. Laughable!