"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."

by mhaze , with approval of Graham

I have to laugh - why do you denigrate DesmogBlog's site owner and Michael Mann?

By the way, here is the judgement against the United States of America for not acting to preserve an environment suitable for children to live in. I understand that fossil fuel interests were not allowed intervene.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/AikenOrder.2016.10November.pdf

And Michael Mann has just won a court case against those who denigrated him without cause

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/

So I guess that your position on AGW is offside with thousands of scientist, and offside with at least with the law in the US.

As I said in an earlier post, be careful who you denigrate.

Cheers
Tony

Hi Tony, I've never disputed that emissions of CO2 will cause the atmosphere to be hotter than what it would otherwise be, all other things being equal. That's not what the argument is about.

The argument is about exactly how sensitive to additional CO2 the atmosphere is, what other forces are acting on the atmosphere both to heat and cool it, and what we ought to do about the additional heating.

The answer to the sensitivity question is increasingly obvious - the atmosphere is less sensitive than the models suggest it should be. We are still working out exactly what else is acting on the atmosphere, and how much warming or cooling it causes.

On the question of the additional warmth, I am with Arrhenius, who first predicted the CO2 effect, and thought some additional warmth would be a good thing. Again, the studies that I see tend to confirm this, plus the fact that the additional CO2 is helping to feed the world. On those grounds, building some additional robustness into our systems is probably the best answer to what to do about CO2 emissions.

Your court cases are merely preliminary skirmishes about whether his matters can even be allowed to proceed or whether they should be dismissed. They don't uphold your position. Michael Mann hasn't been vindicated at all.

To mhaze,Graham, nicknamenick, - which could be 1, 2 or 3 people

Not that qualifications should not matter in this discussion, but I think I do know what I have been talking about:

PhD - Upper atmospheric physics - Melb Uni
One year as auroral scientist at Mawson in the Antarctic
12 years in IT at the Bureau of Meteorology
Running a climate change course for over 6 or so years

And much more

BUT, I am not a climate schange scientist

AND am enjoying the fun of offering facts
when I come across people
who not only do not understand AGW,
but who pretend to do so,
who develop and promulgate myths,

not caring if they delay necessary action to mitigate AGW
and adapt to a rapidly changing environment:

Those who have no care for our world's future.

Graham,
you need to update your views on Mann.

My quandary is to understand whether you knew the following and just intended to obfuscate, or whether you really did not know the current status of court actions.

This is the sixth out of six decisions that have come down in favor of science:
Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann,
Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann supreme Court Appeal,
ATI v. UVA/Mann,
ATI v. UVA/Mann Supreme Court Appeal,
Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court,
Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.

Hi Tony, if you want anyone to believe that list of qualifications you are going to have to tell us who you are so we can fact check you. You certainly are not conducting yourself on here as someone with a serious understanding of climate science. It is mostly trolling. So until you do produce some proof I'm going to assume you are most likely a troll.

Everyone knows who I am, and no, I am not mhaze and certainly not Nick.

With respect to Mann, he has won some court cases, but they have been preliminary skirmishes as to whether other actions he has launched can even proceed, or attempts to hide information from the public or public authorities. In no sense have the judges ruled on whether his "science" or "the science", is correct, whatever you might mean by the second concept.