“ dumbness never ends around here”. Yes, Poirot, but in your case, is it dumbness, or dishonesty?

You know it has been far hotter in the past. than it is today, with the small amount of warming, which occurred coming out of a mini ice age. What do you mean by “record levels”? Is that a stupid statement, or a dishonest one? Only you can tell us.

Warmists: if you don't care that what you're saying is fallacious, why do you bother discussing it?

Why do you care whether other people believe what you believe?

But if you do care that what you're saying is fallacious, why do you just keep endlessly repeating fallacies?

I get tired of pointing out the same factual errors, the same misrepresentations, the same circularities, the same non sequiturs, the same ad hominem, the same reversed onus of proof, the same redefinition of "science" to mean appeal to absent authority; the same evasion of questions that prove you categorically wrong; over and over again.

I mean for example these arguments about such and such's particular qualifications or personality, are just too stupid for words, because even if it were this or that, it wouldn't settle the issue about the DATA and the METHODOLOGY you fools. It would still only amount to an appeal to authority. How can you be so thick you don't understand that even after it's repeatedly explained to you? Honestly, your intellectual method is back in the Dark Ages.

What's the point of pointing out your process of reasoning is fallacious if you're just going to repeat all the fallacies that you shouldn't have made in the first place?

All it means is that you've lost the argument, and you're either too dumb or to dishonest to admit it. End of story. You lost. Unable to prove argument except by assuming it's true = you lost. Too dumb.

Never mind advanced climatology, you guys need to understand the basic requirements of logical thought.

The Arctic, Leo is a driver of climate; over the winter time temperatures were significantly higher in Alaska and Scandinavian countries. In one of my notes I included a film clip about how climate is impacting on people in Finland. A section of the short film was devoted to reindeer farming. The comment was made that the snow was becoming soft and instead of being able to walk over crisp snow reindeer were sinking into it and the view was that reindeer farming might not be possible in the future.
Here is the clip again:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2687/life-in-the-arctic-sami-view

The reference I gave in relation to Siberia shows that they have had significant wild fires there in April 2014. The April 2014 fires left smoke plumes able to be seen from satellites, the fires had fronts ranging from 3 to 34 miles.

Please provide support for the myth that you are trying to maintain about temperatures, the trend has been of them increasing.
Temperature is not only reflected in what a thermometer says but also in what is happening in the environment. Permafrost melting equals warmth. Over the last days there have been temperatures above 24C lately in some Canadian towns which is a temperature that is rarely passed. These Canadian towns are an indication of the trend Professor Lesack has written about when discussing the McKenzie River. Professor Lesack tracked temperature ranges from 1958 through till almost the present. his paper was published earlier this year.

Jardine K. Jardine, where is your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not happening? In many of the notes I have written I have provided many examples of what is actually happening in an empirical sense. When I first became interested in climate change, I came across methane being vented. In earlier writings about methane it was being vented in ponds, a later paper was discussing methane being vented in a diametre of a kilometer; today I found it is being vented in a diameter of 150 kilometers off Siberia. It is warmth that is melting permafrost and the shallows off the Siberian Coast.

Global warming is not causing droughts and wildfires, ant, so you are making baseless assertions again
“Historically, the United States was struck by severe fires even before carbon dioxide reached current levels. In fact, the two largest fires in American history, according to the Weather Underground occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A Wisconsin fire in 1871, “the single worst wild fire in U.S. history,” burned almost 3.8 million acres and killed 1,500 people. The second-worst was a 1910 fire in Idaho and Montana that killed 87 people and destroyed 3 million acres.
In fact, geological records bolster the evidence that earlier fires were more frequent. A 2009 analysis by R.M. Beaty and A.H. Taylor examined charcoal records in northern California to study wildfires over thousands of years. They found that “current fire episode frequency is at one of its lowest points in at least the last 14,000 years.”
Similar evidence challenged the connection between climate change and droughts.
This information is not surprising, . The San Jose Mercury News reported in January that “studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence” have revealed “severe megadroughts [that] make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame.” In fact, Scott Stine, an environmental studies professor at California State University, East Bay, studied tree ring data and found that while 2013 was a very dry year, this past century “has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.”
. A group of researchers led by J.A. Kleppe found in 2011 that “dry conditions have occurred regularly, in cyclical fashion, ‘every 650-1150 years,” suggesting “there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about the nature of [Californian] drought.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/06/05/networks-blame-wildfires-droughts-climate-change-despite-fact-they-ve-dec

You give no consideration to the facts or science before you make your assertions. You have no basis on which to expect evidence to refute your assertions. They are refuted by showing that they are without foundation, and contrary to science, like your assertion of AGW.
Where is the science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?

As to cessation of global warming, the Satellite temperature record shows no warming for 17 years 6 months as at February 2014.
“Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
I hope this clarifies the situation for you, Poirot

Leo, you provide a political reference plus Monckton as supporting what you say.
In relation to wildfires/bushfires climate change creates accentuated conditions for these to occur. Australia is a country where bushfires are a major matter is well known. Australian firies as do their Californian colleagues tell us that climate change is having a further impact on the nature of bushfires. Climate change intensifies bushfire/wildfire conditions. In January 2014, there were two wildfires in heathland in Norway, their winter.
The wildfires are normally experienced in Siberia beginning from about now till August. Over the years the fire season has been happening earlier and earlier.
Nobody denies Leo the major weather conditions in the past. Climate change scientists tell us that these kind of events will happen on a more regular basis.
A quote from a previous reference:

"This winter, temperatures throughout large swaths of this typically frigid land of tundra and boreal forest ranged between 5 and 7 degrees Celsius above average." (Siberia)
Temperatures have been higher than usual in The Arctic region generally over the last winter. There has been a warming trend happening over decades.

https://weather.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif

Investigate what the map means Leo. You claim that climate change is a fraud so should easily be able to interpret the map shown in the above site. Hint the temperatures shown are a real worry.

Monckton is not a scientist Leo, he is a very good communicator; but, the information he provides is not reliable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0

The film is not a personal attack on him but debunks the points that he makes.

Science is a very rational empirical based way of finding how things work; your newsbusters reference presents a politically conservative viewpoint. Its about as reliable as Red Flag as a source, an extreme left wing group. Science is neither left wing nor right wing in the information provided.