Yes, flea, no reply to the fact that you are blatantly dishonest other than to call the truth about you “abuse”.
No science, other than laboratory science which the fraud promoters have been unable to apply to the real world. When they said the CO2 content of the atmosphere would increase global warming, the global warming stopped.
In the 20 years since the cessation, the fraud promoters have produced serial lies, from “it is only a pause” to “it never really stopped”
You use the abusive and baseless term “deniers” when referring to truth promoters, in your blatant dishonesty, and admit that there is no science to back your fraudulent assertion, by failing to produce any viable answer. Your attitude is disgraceful.
You serve to remind us that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate

Leo
The eleven year ARM study was conducted in the natural environment, with data collected pretty well on a daily basis. Data was taken at two locations, one in Oklahoma and the other in Alaska. You are completely wrong about experiments only taking place in laboratories.

Ken Cohen from ExxonMobil has admitted to them financing denier groups which undermined the science their own scientists had produced. Now ExxonMobil is being investigated for fraud.

Yes, flea, no reply to the fact that you are blatantly dishonest other than to call the truth about you “abuse”.
No science, other than laboratory science which the fraud promoters have been unable to apply to the real world. When they said the CO2 content of the atmosphere would increase global warming, the global warming stopped. So much for their “science”, the same “science” as you have the temerity to reference; science that does not work outside of the laboratory.
In the 20 years since the cessation, the fraud promoters have produced serial lies, from “it is only a pause” to “the warming never really stopped”
You use the abusive and baseless term “deniers” when referring to truth promoters, in your blatant dishonesty, and admit that there is no science to back your fraudulent assertion, by failing to produce any viable answer. Your attitude is disgraceful. You could not be as stupid as you pretend to be when you write your nonsense.
You serve to remind us that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Exxon had the sense to reject the advice of their scientists when they became fraud promoters, so we can expect they will make short work of any nonsense by way of prosecution for rejection of the climate fraud.

Leo

You make lots of comments about fraud, say science has been rigged;yet, do not give any reference to any science.
The ARM study was highly sophisticated I and have yet to see anything like a critique.
Please provide references that show the ARM study is wrong. It has been peer reviewed.

Once again, it is ExxonMobil that is being investigated for fraud; pretty embarrassing when you say scientists provide fraudulent material; but, it is the company you are supporting that is being investigated.

On your account John Tyndall in the 1850s and Fourier before him were committing fraud.

Climate change denying has only been pushed for about two decades; you do not need to be very smart to work out why that has been the case.

We have peak scientific agencies from a number of nationalities and political ideologies agreeing with the view of anthropogenic climate change; and we have very few climate scientists who are skeptical. Run Occam's Razor over all of that; taking into account that Ken Cohen from ExxonMobil has admitted to funding denier agencies.

You have stated, flea, that I do not back my statements with science. You are lying, or pretending to be stupid. I will again post one of the many items of science which you pretend not to have seen. This is an extract of a review of a peer reviewed paper showing that the warming claimed by the fraud-backers to be human caused is natural:
“Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

You say“On your account John Tyndall in the 1850s and Fourier before him were committing fraud. “
Another lie, I have said no such thing. I have said that anyone asserting human caused global warming when there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate is making a fraudulent statement.. Do you assert that Tyndall or Fourier did that?
Make a clear straightforward statement for once in your life.All they did was make a false assumption that the CO2 in the atmosphere was human caused. The IPCC should have learned from this not to make stupid guesses.

Leo
What I have stated a number of times is that Fourier and Tyndall were developing climate science ;with time more came to be understood at the beginning of the 19th century. Svante Arrhenius began to develop a view on what later has been termed green house gases. He must have been committing fraud; Leo, even though he was the recipient of a Noble Prize. Your logic around Tyndall and Fourier is somewhat interesting.
You say that climate scientists are committing fraud; that must then include early practitioners.
Svante Arrhenius actually made predictions about how much influence CO2 would have on the atmosphere. This is surely fraud in your view Leo; he developed the physics of climate change further than Tyndall.

Science keeps building Leo, your reference is old, goes back to 2009.

Many researches are saying that there has been no such concept as pause or hiatus. The referenced article is written by a climate scientist (2015).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/18/in-a-blind-test-economists-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause

ExxonMobil scientists had a consensus view of climate change. The ExxonMobil scientists must have been committing fraud in the 1970s and 1980s Leo by your logic. Yet, it is ExxonMobil management that is being investigated.

It is not logical to claim climate scientists are promoting fraud while their pioneers were not.