Mhaze,
As a general comment, as scientists become well known through in depth research in their subject areas, they generally have little deep knowledge in other areas (I have not considered Judith Curry who has left her research position). So, if you wish to know more about ocean acidification, you would not consult a solar physicist.

The list of scientists you offered earlier are not researchers in climate change nor closely related areas. They are listened to by denialists who listen to any scientist who has views anti climate change. I notice at least one in your list quotes religious reasons for his view.

So, the list you provide may have had good careers in some branch of science, however their views on climate change, in my view, have no weight. Another factor you might like to research is that each in your list probably has a view on climate change that has little similarity to others in the list.

You might like to find more "scientists" willing to provide the stuff you like to read on this site:-
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Tony

Tony,

Oh dear! You reject my list of scientists to 'love' for a variety of totally spurious reasons:

"The list of scientists you offered earlier are not researchers in climate change nor closely related areas. "

Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and an IPCC lead author. Yep nothing to do with Climate Change

Singer, among other accomplishments, is an atmospheric physicist and Professor emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia.

Christy is climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the head of the team that complies one of the main temperature records. Yep nothing to do with Climate Change.

Spencer - well too much to mention. See here to see how little he has to do with CC research </sarc>:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) ) Seriously Tony!

Svensmark is a leading expert on cloud formation and negative feedbacks.

You list armospheric(sic) chemistry as a profession to be 'loved' but apparently not the atmospheric scientists in my list. Wonder why?

"Another factor you might like to research is that each in your list probably has a view on climate change that has little similarity to others in the list."

Yes, because scientists should only be considered worthy if they agree with each other. Dill.

The bottom line, Tony, you 'love' those people who tell you what you want to hear and ignore those equally or better qualified who challenge your prejudices.

Tony, this confirms in my mind that you are ant.

For those playing along, ant disappeared from the group after making so many errors and unethical assertions that even he became too embarrassed to remain.

Have you read the Exxon papers yet Tony?

Task for Mhaze,

1. Prove Herschel did not discover infrared radiation in 1800;

2. Prove Fourier wrong when in 1820 measured daily solar energy , calculated night time heat loss that should have resulted in a -20C surface temperature; then surmised there is a blanket in the atmosphere keeping temperature at about plus 15C;

3. Disprove Tyndall’s 1850’s discovery that CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases;

4. Find fault with Nobel Laureate, Svante Arrhenius – 1900 - calculated that doubling CO2 would create a 4C to 6C temperature rise. As a Swede, he wanted a warmer world, but calculated it would take 3000 years to happen

Can you undo this 150 years or so science?

Referenced the following source of information?
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Look at one of your leading lights, Lindzen who according to the reference, received funds from fossil fuel organisations – presumably to push their point of view.

ExxonMobil recently accepted that their 1970s science group understood climate warming, the role fossil fuels play, and the world wide impacts that were arising from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. ExxonMobil didn’t heed their scientists – they apparently preferred, and prefer, profits. I understand they are before the courts in the US for not heeding the science in the 1970s, and therefore wantonly pushing the world to the situation we are now in. And the courts deal with facts, not these illusory sets of “empirical evidence”.

Other court cases in the US: children are taking governments to court for harming the environment they will have to live in. And winning those cases at lower courts – and heading towards higher courts.

Unfortunately for denialists, the courts require facts.

Oh, and Michael Mann is suing denialists for damage done to his reputation many years ago. And heading in the winning direction.
So, mhaze, beware of those you belittle and whose characters you besmirch.

But, by all means, become involved in fact based debates on the science. Good science arises from such debates.

Tony, this is a stupid post. mhaze didn't deny any of those things you ask him to disprove. So what is your point? It appears to be to try to verbal people who you disagree with. Which is a very nasty thing to do.

The only court case I am aware of on the substance of climate change claims was one in the UK where it was found that An Inconvenient Truth was propaganda and couldn't be shown to UK children in schools without disclaimers as to its accuracy. Children wouldn't have standing to sue, so I doubt that part of your story.

Desmog Blog is an astroturf operation run by a public relations company which earns money from Big Enviro.

Michael Manne has sued for defamation, but would be unlikely to win. He perpetrated a fraud with his hockey stick graph where he discarded proxies once they failed to confirm his hypothesis and replaced them with other measurements. It's the 20th century equivalent of the Piltdown Man, and he's welcome to have a go at suing me. Wouldn't get very far.

So your evidence is irrelevant, tainted, or wrong, and aimed at denigrating a valued member of this forum. Please show some respect when you post.

Graham,

Accepting the validity of that 1800's science is, in effect, acceptance that AGW is real.

If you wish to maintain that it is not real, then you need to disprove that science.

Or, as is often the case, build a fiction that has no factual base.

Tony

" Tony, this is a stupid post.. It appears to be to try to verbal people who you disagree with. Which is a very nasty thing to do.

Desmog Blog is an astroturf operation.. Michael Manne ..perpetrated a fraud . So your evidence is.. and aimed at denigrating . Please show some respect when you post."

blink, blink