The flea says:” You say you were a lawyer; and so, have no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.”.
Is this simply a stupid statement, or is it a lie?
Since even the flea could not be stupid enough to believe it, it has to be a lie..
The flea has never stated his qualification, and from his display of ignorance, I assumed he had none, so has “ no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.”.
Did you ever have gainful employment, flea, before you gravitated to lying about climate? Of course, I realise that in your current state, you are unemployable.

Nice to see that the fraud promoters are losing, in Australia:” IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.
A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.
For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/csiro-survey-shows-more-aussies-are-cool-on-warming/news-story/31fa9e2c7f0a060fc87c2a768168be40

Leo

As stated before Leo; using ad hominem attacks is a form of logical fallacy.

You have provided WUWT as a reference in the past; here is a reference which displays exactly how farcical their graph of the current situation of sea ice extent in the Arctic is:

http://neven1.typepad.com/

Neven happens to display the accepted sea ice extent graph.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The WUWT graph shows an error of over two standard deviations, if you have been following what is happening to sea ice extent over the last years you would realise that WUWT is completely wrong.

The flea is really unhinged. Not only does he have no science to support his ratbaggery, but he uses the fact that I have referred to Anthony Watts in the past to raise an invalid criticism by some pretend scientist who calls himself “Neven” criticising a reputable blog site, and an established and world recognised scientist like Roy Spencer.
Neven no doubt has the same qualification as the flea, absolutely none, but the flea introduces his nonsense as if it has any relevance.
The flea has produced no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, in relation to his support of the climate fraud.
He is an unqualified, ignorant fraud supporter, who constantly finds unqualified unidentified, ignorant liars, like Neven, to support his nonsense.
Robert Carter once remarked that the analytical ability of a lawyer made them effective in climate discussion.
The flea's lack of qualification, and ignorance, certainly makes him a pest.

Leo

In your retirement you should take up comedy.

About half an hour ago this story popped up on my Face Book page:

http://stratfordobserver.co.uk/news/climate-change-setback-stratford-polar-explorer/

Quote:

"Ettington adventurer Mark Wood was set to embark on a 600 mile journey from the Russian Arctic Coast to the geographic North Pole on Saturday February 20 – ironically with the aim of exposing the “true extent” of climate change in the Arctic.

But with just days to go before 38 year-old Mark, and his two serving soldier teammates Mark Langridge and Paul Vicary, were due to set off it was revealed the Arctic conditions it would face had never been so treacherous as Arctic sea ice levels had hit a “record low”."

Watts has Arctic sea ice extent expanding.

The official site referenced below, says:

"Arctic sea ice extent during January averaged 13.53 million square kilometers (5.2 million square miles), which is 1.04 million square kilometers (402,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. This was the lowest January extent in the satellite record...."

From:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If you go to the site you will see that the sea ice extent is still at a record low level for 25 February 2016.

Watts is more than two standard deviations in what he presents, meaning he is absolutely wrong.