LL cites Roger Pielke to demonstarte that there has been no impact from CC and of course by inference, no global warming. But he/she omits all of the rebuttals to this of which there are dozens.

Start with this if anyone reading this OLO piece is interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-abraham-phd/roger-pielke-climate-science_b_5038272.html

LL won't as he/she is paid to peddle misinformation and seed this site with jargon and denier rhetoric.

what is frustrating is that so many other contributors are presumably "doing it for themselves" and yet these posters will go to the doctor or hospital or fly in an aeroplane based on their confidence in the scientific process and yet choose to ignore the same process on AGW.

Peter King, besides his proven dishonesty in backing the fraud of AGW puts forward a baseless lie about me. I am not paid to tell the truth about the AGW fraud. I tell it because of my disdain for dishonesty.

No one who backs the fraud has come up with any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
How about you, Peter, have you anything to back your assertions, or do you join the others, on this thread, with dishonesty the sole basis for your fraud-backing?

Arrant nonsense again from Leo; empirically based data is being collected constantly by observation, by measurement, and satellite data. There is an International Scientific team measuring the state of methane in the Arctic (Laptev Sea) right now. Leo, can only offer an opinion from a layman's point of view which does not do the slightest amount of damage to climate scientists.
By constantly saying something is the case (fraud) is meaningless without any kind of proof, Leo has never provided any proof.

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/major-methane-releases-at-laptev.html

You are the one backing AGW, so the onus of proof is in you, ant to provide evidence. This is where I usually say that you cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, but I think I have to consider that may be too stupid to understand your position. You assert that human emissions affect climate, and have no basis to justify your assertion, then ask for proof from me that you are wrong. You cannot prove that you are right, so your assertion is dismissed on that basis. Why do you refer constantly to methane? You seem to think it has something to do with the topic of human effect on climate.It has no bearing on it.

Leo, if you are not a scientist it is a nonsense to say whether the science is right or wrong. Deniers simply do not have access to the data available; nor would many understand much of the data.
To have any kind of legitimate denier opinion that counts, one needs to have some understanding about what is being denied.

Leo, you would no doubt have a negative opinion about this statement taken randomly; "...Looking at the Euro, GFS ensembles, ukmet, and Euro ensembles the Laptev(Eastern side) is in for a world of pain."
But, do you know what it actually means?

There are dogs you see occasionally that only have three legs (due to accidents); does that mean that anybody who says dogs have four legs are creating fraud. That is, the logic of what you say.

You seem to be incapable of expressing rational thought, ant. Should you take a break, and stop displaying your condition.Perhaps it is the frustration of having no science to justify your fraud-backing.

Peter King seems to have belatedly realised that he is better to say nothing, than to demonstrate, any further, his confused state.