Leo wrote "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss"

Your statement says that the National Science bodies which represent thousands of scientists are all "lying clowns."
To debunk anything Leo you need evidence.

Climate science informs us that the atmosphere carries more moisture, and when it rains there is the potential for huge downpours. We know thats happened in US regions, China, Britain,Serbia/Bosnia, Austria in late 2013 and 2014. Lately in NE Brazil it went close to creating the need for a soccer match between US and Ghana to be cancelled.

Ant says:” Your statement says that the National Science bodies which represent thousands of scientists are all "lying clowns.”. No it does not, ant. It says: "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss"..
There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. No one with scientific background who asserts otherwise is telling the truth. The scientific bodies from which such statements have been procured by manipulations of fraud-backers are not representing the views of their member scientists. The Royal Society, for instance, changed its false statement of 2007, after complaints from its members. The American Physical Society is changing its false statement because of complaints from its members.

You really are a waste of space, ant, but I suppose if you were capable of organised, rational thought you would not be a fraud-backer.

Leo, said "...: "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss."
In relation to National Science bodies NASA says :"(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)" and lists 197 organisations.
You need to complete logical somersaults to maintain what you are saying; Leo.

Something I have noticed is that when I provide examples of anomalous weather patterns, deniers do not seek to argue against them, Leo. My example of rainfall in my last post wasn't taken up. Bit hard to argue in relation to weather that has happened; for example, Austria having 2.5 months supply of rain in a short period. My sources says "... From May 30 to June 1, 2014, parts of Austria received the amount of rain that normally falls in two-and-half months: 150 to 200 mm (5.9 to 7.9"), with some parts experiencing 250 mm (9.8")." The rainfall in Austria occurred twelve days after the the deluge in Serbia/Bosnia.
One example can be considered to be a normal variation in weather pattern; but, when there are several examples around the planet in a short time frame that shows a pattern. Other anomalous weather patterns display unusual warmth and snowfall patterns.

So, we have a journo who makes stuff up about 'deniers' being members of American Physical Society's POPA.

Then we have Raycom spreading those fraudulent claims and unable to admit they were wrong.

Then we have another fraudster spinning those same claims as some kind of truth.

And to top it off, Lane has the audacity to say the world's scientific institutions are fraudsters.

Not only James Delingpole has lost all credibility, so has Raycom and Leo!

You certainly seem to be confused about lying DavidK and you do not seem to grasp that lack of clarity is not the way to gain acceptance on OLO.

Delingpole was mistaken in details of his article, but his concern is to bring out the truth about the AGW fraud.

When you misrepresent what I say, David, are you mistaken, or are you lying? I said that statements issued by certain institutions were fraudulent. Institutions cannot be fraudsters, but fraud-backers can procure the issue of fraudulent statements from institutions. Surely you have sufficient education to understand that. Please inform us as to whether you think you are lying or mistaken, when you assert that I said that institutions are fraudsters, which is something I never said.

Just did a Google search of "leo lane" + "agw fraud"

WOW!

Then Leo Lane's OLO history

WOW WOW!

Will just leave you to play your little games Mr Lane(law) - fraud indeed!