The flea uses standard fraud promotion tactics, in refusing to answer any questions, because he has no science to justify his nonsense.
He has no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and rejects the science of a reputable scientist like Robert Carter.
He prefers the science of NASA, and proven liars like NOAA and BOM, and something called JMA, whatever that might be, if it exists.
The 1930s were the hottest years in the US, until the then-NASA scientist, James Hansen, tampered with the temperature record, to make them cooler, and create a false upward trend. He also tampered with later temperature to make it warmer where appropriate for the global warming fraud.

A great cartoon was the one of Gillard asking Tim (Dud Predictions) Flannery why, when she was paying him so much, did Carter always win the climate debate.
Not applicable these days, because none of the climate fraud promoters will debate Carter.They desperately want to avoid , making fools of themselves.

You do not need all those words tomw, to admit that the fraud-promoting scientists are incapable of setting up a computer program to demonstrate what they assert the science to be. Either the science is invalid or the fraud-promoters do not know how to produce a valid computer model. You are almost as bad as the flea in producing pointless verbiage.

JKJ you are talking above the flea’s head. Of course he does not understand.

Leo, not knowing what Agency JMA is says it all, you are critical without knowing what you are critical about ( home goal).
JMA is the abbreviation of the Japanese Meteorological Agency. So, we have the peak Meteorological Agencies of America, Britain, Japan, and Australia with NASA and NOAA showing what is happening with the climate being wrong because of what Carter says.

Making wild accusations about fraud being committed without a shred of evidence doesn't do anything for your credibility, Leo. It is very difficult to swallow the argument that because NASA, NOAA, BOM, JMA and MET do not support what you write they are committing fraud. It is here that Occam"s Razor might be applied.

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil is being investigated in relation to fraud by the Attorney General of New York; a subpoena has been presented seeking documentation and research

Leo, this popped into my email just after my last response.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

The first sentences from the reference:

"When it comes to climate deniers in the halls of Congress, some have suggested that their rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change stems from their financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.
But it turns out that it’s not just members of Congress whose climate doubt may be traced back to corporate influence — a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that over the last 20 years, private funding has had an important influence on the overall polarisation of climate change as a topic in the United States."

Your conspiracy theory comes unstuck when the research of Sociologists underpins climate science through showing how ExxonMobil and Koch Bros funded anti climate science nonsense

The Guardian has just published an article written by a scientist about how the so called "hiatus" does not stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/24/study-drives-a-sixth-nail-in-the-global-warming-pause-myth

The first sentences are:

"Despite the organization and funding behind groups which try to cast doubt about the causes and implications of climate change, the facts have spoken. The world continues to warm and their favorite myths have died.

We know that human-emitted heat-trapping gases warm the planet. In fact, this has been known for well over a century. With modern instruments (like ocean thermometers and satellites among others) we are now measuring the change. With advanced climate models, we can predict the changes. The measurements and the predictions are in excellent agreement, despite what cable news and second-rate skeptical scientists say."

The flea has still failed to produce any reference to science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
The laboratory science on the effect of CO2, which the fraud promoters have been unable to demonstrate in the real world is irrelevant also because human caused CO2 is 3% of atmospheric CO2 against 97% natural CO2.The human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
In an article clarifying the climate fraud:

“Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists’ fashionable “global warming” narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up – where before they looked either flat or declining.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
As to NOAA:
“Temperature Fraud At NOAA
Posted on July 27, 2015by stevengoddard
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
When will the flea face the truth?

ant,

I urge you, yet again, to read the original documents.

I also urge you to look into the nature and funding of ICN. You treat them as some sort of impartial commentator on the facts when, in fact they are a front organisation for the anti-fossil fuel Rockefeller Foundation.

In a year's time you're going to be scratching your head trying towork out why Exxon weren't bought low as you seem to hope. If you read the original documents and see that there is nothing there of the slightest concern legally for Exxon then you'll be less confused.

On the other hand I suspect that, in the ant kingdom, the failure of the persecution of Exxon will be viewed as just more proof of the vast corporate conspiracy to hide the truth about how we're all gunna die of CO2.