Leo, how can somebody be mistaken; and then, have any authority in showing fraud?

I do not believe Leo you can call me a "fraud backer" when you take into account thermokarst lakes, shrubs growing in areas previously being permafrost, and thermokarst failure in the Arctic region. These things are beyond dispute; they have been spoken about by climate scientists; and are observable on a number of clips.
If you are not able to give any evidence against these matters then your comments can be seen to be absolute rubbish when you speak about fraud.

DavidK, you have given the normal response of a fraud-backer to a straight question; a puerile attempt to smear the questioner. A futile attempt, despite the practice you must have had as a fraud-backer, answering queries as to any science to back the assertion of any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

The question was as to whether you are mistaken or lying.

If we apply your test, as you applied it to James Delingpole, then of course, you are lying.

We have ant, the science-phobe, objecting to her status as a fraud-backer. All she has to do is refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Without such science, assertion of AGW is fraudulent. Steele, an ardent fraud-backer, objected to the term but finally conceded that there was no valid basis of objection to it. Without science, ant resorts to reference to melting ice and retreating glaciers, and ignores extended ice cover in the Antarctic, and advancing glaciers, and the fact that there has been no warming for 17 years.

You didn't answer my question Leo about thermokarst lakes, shrubs, and thermokarst failure. If you cannot give any reasonable answer then it just shows that you write rubbish, Leo.

DavidK, I drew attention to Delingpole's article in good faith. Leo Lane pointed out that it was incorrect. Consequently, that was the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.

You and your fellow AGW believers have been promoting the hypothesis that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming. It is now up to you to produce the empirical scientific evidence to substantiate that hypothesis. The IPCC and all its hangers-on have been trying to do so for some 30 years, but have failed.

Assertions -- irrespective of who makes them -- do not constitute scientific evidence.

Those who portray assertion as scientific evidence are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Raycom, you stated "... It is now up to you to produce the empirical scientific evidence...."

Raycom, you haven't read, or do not understand what I have written about when using as examples: thermokarst lakes, thermokarst failure, or shrubs growing in permafrost areas. Permafrost means that what ever the season is the soil remains frozen whether it is Summer or some other season, it has been that way for Centuries until recent times. Thermokarst failure has been displayed by a major landslide blocking the Richardson Highway in Alaska. There are houses in Alaska where their foundations have been undermined through thermokarst failure. In other spots crevices have formed where the soil has slumped through the soil warming. Shrubs did not previously grow in tundra areas years ago except for on the verge of tundra areas.
Thermokarst lakes are formed when permafrost melts in hollows with the melt water remaining in that hollow.

AS far as I know ice melts when it is warmed. The Inuit have not experienced whats going on over the last few years in living history.
Please feel free to debunk this empirical evidence of warming.
Then we can discuss glaciers in the Andes, Greenland, other aspects of Alaska, epidemiological matters in Northern Canada and subtropical areas, methane ( in Arctic Circle ), and perhaps feedback systems.

The topic is the assertion of human caused global warming,by ant, and ant is now introducing local, not global, warming, into the discussion which is irrelevant to the topic of human emissions.. In any event, whether global warming is taking place or not, the question is whether there is any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The answer to ant’s irrelevant questions relating to local warming has no bearing on this. She is simply evading the question. Her question, in any event, opens up questions about the expanding ice at the south pole, and about currently advancing glaciers, which by ant’s logic would prove global cooling.

Speaking of ant’s logic, she asserts that as I did not answer her irrelevant question, what I write is rubbish. This is an irrational statement, indicative of a deficiency in her educational background such as to render her unqualified to carry on a rational and logical discussion.You say. ant, that you rely on science to justify your support of AGW, so you are asked to refer us to science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Until you satisfy that precondition, global warming is not the question.