voxUnius,

"Nope - not a scientist at all. And neither were any of the other 8 MPs who disagreed with Lilley and Stringer and voted to accept the IPCC's report."

Here we go again...ya don't think that those without the relevant scientific expertise might defer to those who know what they're talking about (represented by the ICC) - who have expertise, training and experience in the wide field of climate science?

No...we have the likes of you spouting that some guys who studied "some" science - and who have no atmospheric, oceanographic, or climate expertise should be given credence on a subject they know very little about.

Fascinating - how climate "skeptism" works.

"A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity", well go figure ......

Hasbeen, you do know how to find the data on climate, don't you?

We have had scientists on OLO. A particularly good article by Robert Carter does not seem to have elevated the mentality of the fraud-backers on here, who support the IPCC position, despite the lack of science to back it.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848

Poirot never takes any notice of science. On another thread she showed that her sole basis for support of AGW is her dishonesty. If she has since discovered any science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate, she should tell us. The IPCC certainly have not. They rely on their unsupported assertion that it is “94% certain”. They have no science apart from the demonstration that any such effect is trivial and of no scientific significance.

Our ignoramus commenter Tony 153 has no reference to any such science, but seeks to cover that with inane and pointless comments about identification of human emissions

Leo Lane,

"Poirot never takes any notice of science. On another thread she showed that her sole basis for support of AGW is her dishonesty..."

Lol!...Go for it Leo. Like all your another statements on climate, that one is pulled out of fresh air - as if it has some sort of credence because Leo says so.

Displays perfectly your style.

I have come to the conclusion that Leo Lane is in fact a computer bot. Him, her or its comments follow a very strict formula. It has only three comments
1 XXX is dishonest
2 Its all a fraud
3 XXX has no science followed by a personal insult.

Please spell Leo Lane backwards before I will believe you are human.