I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

[PBL] But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing

[AU] I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate……

Let us observe the type of argument being used here. Again.

First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.

It is hard to see how such a line of argument can possibly convince any sentient being of anything. For almost anything that has been published, there is someone somewhere writing on the Internet that it's no good.  I've been seeing that for nearly forty years now, since Usenet groups took off. 

BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: “These data are from the fifth edition of the long-established textbook by Sir John Houghton, former Professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Director of the Appleton Laboratory (now the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory), former Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Science, which contributed to all six IPCC ARs, with 2 lead authors, 2 coordinating lead authors, and 1 review editor in the latest report AR6,  and which has produced more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature since 1990, which have appeared across 200 different journals and have almost 200,000 citations. Knighted by the Queen in 1991.”

.no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.

I would think that would be a very good thing. The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. No other science I know does that (although sciences usually divide into subjects, many of which try to do so).

The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years. Then half the countries in the world get together and develop a consensus summary of all that, for use as guidance by the politicians trying to negotiate a global human response to global warming. Climate science is, as far as I can tell, the only science in which you can pick up a regularly updated 1500pp book which summarises accurately the entire state of the art in that science as of its writing.

There are some anecdotes of how this process actually progresses in Peter Stott's new book.

[PBL] Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.

[AU] I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into;

Then you are missing out on an essential component of the discussion, namely its history. 

These are the books which detail the discussions and controversies which have accompanied climate science ever since Singer and Seitz and Co. got into it on behalf of fossil-fuel companies. If you want to know who claimed what, when, and why, these books are where you find out. 

There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts.  If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom. 

For example, rather than observing that I didn't answer all Roger Bryant's contentions, you'd have known that some of them were answered satisfactorily a quarter century ago. 

Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights". 

But that's what bots do. When the previous rhetoric is not getting traction, the style is changed.

 I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions. 

Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?

I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?

[PBL] But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing

[AU] I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate……

Let us observe the type of argument being used here. Again.

First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.

It is hard to see how such a line of argument can possibly convince any sentient being of anything. For almost anything that has been published, there is someone somewhere writing on the Internet that it's no good.  I've been seeing that for nearly forty years now, since Usenet groups took off. 

BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: “These data are from the fifth edition of the long-established textbook by Sir John Houghton, former Professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Director of the Appleton Laboratory (now the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory), former Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Science, which contributed to all six IPCC ARs, with 2 lead authors, 2 coordinating lead authors, and 1 review editor in the latest report AR6,  and which has produced more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature since 1990, which have appeared across 200 different journals and have almost 200,000 citations. Knighted by the Queen in 1991.”

.no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.

I would think that would be a very good thing. The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. No other science I know does that (although sciences usually divide into subjects, many of which try to do so).

The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years. Then half the countries in the world get together and develop a consensus summary of all that, for use as guidance by the politicians trying to negotiate a global human response to global warming. Climate science is, as far as I can tell, the only science in which you can pick up a regularly updated 1500pp book which summarises accurately the entire state of the art in that science as of its writing.

There are some anecdotes of how this process actually progresses in Peter Stott's new book.

[PBL] Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.

[AU] I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into;

Then you are missing out on an essential component of the discussion, namely its history. 

These are the books which detail the discussions and controversies which have accompanied climate science ever since Singer and Seitz and Co. got into it on behalf of fossil-fuel companies. If you want to know who claimed what, when, and why, these books are where you find out. 

There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts.  If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom. 

For example, rather than observing that I didn't answer all Roger Bryant's contentions, you'd have known that some of them were answered satisfactorily a quarter century ago. 

Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights". 

But that's what bots do. When the previous rhetoric is not getting traction, the style is changed.

 I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions. 

Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?

I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?