Leo, you definitely do not have an inquiring mind; science is about continually asking questions setting up a hypothesis and then try and prove or disprove it. At times they do go up blind alleys which helps other scientists go to new areas to question. Fraud is something exceptionally rare in science. Where fraud has occurred it is mostly associated where companies stand to make huge profits.

Maybe you need to go to Scholastic Google to find information.
I notice one of the "experts" deniers have used belongs to the IPA an extreme neocon group. The IPA has tobacco and mining interests involved and they are having an impact on decision making of the Abbott crew.

Dear Leo,

Lol.

I have this vision of you standing at the edge of the sand pit with your arms crossed and a tear running down your eye refusing to talk.

The article is critical of Obama and Kerry but you immediately lifted it to inane levels with the slur of 'crooks' which you levelled in the very first sentence in this thread.

Then in your second post you said of me;

“Liars like Kerry and Obama must be great role models for you.”

You set the tone now you are sulking in the corner because you have been pulled up. You seem not to be able to recognise a fact if you fell over one, you have called for evidence but provided falsehoods yourself, and you have made unwarranted assumptions.

Of course I was trying to trip you up by posting the quotes from the 'President' without naming him directly. It was to make the very valid point that politics dictate who your side of this debate goes after rather than facts. You refused to answer the question was Bush a liar and a crook for saying what he did, and you flat out refused to believe Marohasy had said the words I quoted.

If you lead with your chin mate don't be surprised when you land flat on your back. Now suck it up.

Happily, the reality I inhabit is not the one perceived by Steele and ant. Steele has supplied evidence that he is a duplicitous clown suffering the delusion that he is clever and ant believes that by asking stupid questions she will work out what the discussion is about.

Neither of them have come up with any science to justify their support of the AGW fraud. It is time they went away with their tails between their legs.

It is very obvious that you have not gone to some of the references I have supplied. One of the references forensically pulls apart comments made by Monckton using referenced arguments.

Another reference shows satellite photos of the fractured ice sheet in the Arctic.

Having those and other references provided; and others, a person with an inquiring mind would at least acknowledge there is a case for climate change. If not convinced they would be looking for more information.

Leo, whether you like it or not CO2 levels have raised from about 270 ppm to about 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution, I use the word "about" as there are constant small variations. That immediately creates a prima facie case that climate change is real when factors such as sun activity, atmospherics generally are studied etc. Whether you like it or not CO2 levels are routinely measured at Hawaii and Cape Grim. The amount of CO2 is progressively going up. You then need to be able to argue against physics and chemistry as to what happens next.

The case of temperatures increasing has been taken to Court twice by deniers, they lost on both occasions.
I have already given this reference in relation to Court action in New Zealand.
http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

Becoming abusive just sullies your point of view. It mostly indicates that the person being abusive is not able to come up with answers. Continually saying "fraud" has occurred is meaningless.

Leo, you'll enjoy this reference:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/25/3418227/psychic-climate-science-denier/

ant, you are an alarmist, just like Mr Redux and even the more scientifically qualified hysterics that appear here such as agro.

AGW is a belief system; it ignores or twists facts and logic when they persistently contradict the AGW 'science'.

The fact that CO2 has risen by about 130 ppm over the last 120 years is actually an argument against AGW, if you accept that CO2 is the driver of climate how do you explain the fact that over any time period CO2 and temperature don't correlate; consider this for starters:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend