Who asked for your name, bonmot? What I asked was did you claim to be an expert. If you do, then in what field?

I have never said global warming would be catastrophic, nor has any Realist, to my knowledge. The IPCC and other fraud backers allege that it will be catastrophic.

They also allege, without scientific proof, that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate.

On what basis do you assert a 2 degree increase by 2100. There is no scientific basis for this. If you believe that there is, let us have it. Do you assert it to be AGW?

Your posts are not comprehensible. Alarmists assert AGW without scientific justification. Explain how there can be alarmists on both sides. The other side consists of realists, who assert that human emissions have a trivial effect on climate.

If the Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Greg Combet, were seen to urinate in the ocean in front of his waterfront home, an observer could correctly say that the sea was polluted. The pollution would not be scientifically demonstrable, any more than the effect of human emissions on climate can be scientifically demonstrated. The effect is trivial.

You have 100% record, bonmot, in never having given a straight answer.

1. Give my field will give my name (if your a sleuth) – nope, having too much fun

2. I am a realist, like the vast majority of real scientists

3. Only catastrophic if certain parameters are met, not anytime soon, imho … the planet is squealing

4. Leo, science is not conducted as in a court of Law, weight of evidence does matter … you/I don’t

5. You really should try and get a handle on the science Leo, it’s out there if you really want it

6. Best leave your ideological guff out of it … it helps to have an open mind

7. The enhanced greenhouse effect is a significant component, but not the only component

8. I can’t improve your comprehension skills, you will believe what you want to believe

9. Scientists report on their research, it’s up to others to act on it, or not

10. There are extreme points of view – some say the sky is falling, some say there is no sky

11. That trace amount of GHG keeps the planet from being a snowball

12. That trace amount of GHG has been stable for 20,000 years

13. That trace amount of GHG has increased 30% in just 200 years

14. You have a 100% record of shutting your eyes, blocking your ears, and shouting your lungs out

A long winded effort, bonmot, to confirm that you will not give a straight or comprehensible answer.

Why would I, or any one else, care what your name is? You misrepresented yourself, and you have been caught out.

Nigel Calder is a respected scientist who has taken an interest in the AGW nonsense for many years. The politically correct reporting of the results of the CERN experiment does not disguise the fact that the final nail has been driven into the coffin of the AGW scam. He says:

“There’s no mention of the successful experiments in ion chemistry and molecular cluster formation by the Danish team in Copenhagen…..

Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies.”

At least a genuine scientist can be clear in his statement. Can you imagine a real scientist saying “the planet is squealing”?

I understand the difficulty of the AGW fraud backers. They cannot make a scientific statement which backs up their myth.

They point to pretend science like the IPCC’s "90% certainty", backed by 5 unconflicted scientists and questioned by over 31,000 impartial scientists who signed a petition to Congress to delay any action until their was some scientific basis for AGW established.

Of course, no such basis can be established so AGW is a dead issue in the US, as it will be here when we regain decent government

Your comprehension skills are truly disturbing, Leo.

Others might find this about "squealing" disturbing too:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115512&org=NSF&from=news

Leo, your very last few words dispel any notion of you being open-minded, or a real sceptic - you're not.

Proof? Google "Leo Lane" + "climate change".

You even get an unsurprising 'hit' on Cohenite's so called Climate Sceptics Party blog site ... ROFL

Leo, there are more things to life than trolling the internet and droning on about your anti-science guff. Seek help.

To someone like you bonmot, no doubt my comprehension skills are disturbing.

I find it disturbing that government funds make nonsense articles, like the one to which you refer us, available to directionless people like you. I saw the joke line: “what scientists call ‘squealing,’”. What “scientists” would they be? Confused people, like you, but with a degree from some university.

In all your dredging through the internet, researching me, you will not find any instance where I have referred to myself as a sceptic. I have always called myself a Realist, and objected to the term “denier” or “sceptic’. I have on occasion referred to fraud backers as deniers, but never apply that term to Realists.

You will find that I only put forward scientifically backed truth, or point out where assertions by fraud backers lack a scientific basis.

You have sustained a perfect record, bonmot, of never being right about anything.

The possible exception was when asked to give a scientific basis for your assertion that human emissions had any relevance to climate, you said: “I do not want to, and I do not see why I should.”.

In other words, you put forward nonsense, and will continue to do so, although you cannot supply any justification for it when asked.

Don't waste your time Leo, the fool wouldn't know what day it is.

What an arrogant peanut he is Leo, "if I gave you my field, would give you my name".

Bony, I don't follow stand up comedians, & I believe Graham Kennedy is dead isn't he, so I give up.

Leo, if he had a clue he'd be beating you about the head with it, & claiming that was justified behaviour, as most warmest do with their lack of ethics, so leave him alone to stew on the impending loss of a lovely little earner.