The flea says:” Royal Society papers are not science according to you, as climate change is discussed:”

This is not only a lie, but a stupid lie. I have mentioned, on more than one occasion, that the Royal Society, after its statement that climate change was human caused, was forced by its own membership to issue a revised statement acknowledging all of the uncertainties in relation to the climate change science.Its current statement does this. The superseded staements were wrong. I am not going to check whether the flea included them in his list.
The flea established at the outset that he has no science to support his backing of the assertion of human caused climate change, and his position is based solely on his dishonesty.
As I have said before, he is not fit to participate in rational or properly conducted discussion. He is incapable of sensible or honest response, and his boorish conduct nullifies any value of his contribution, in the doubtful possibility that it had any value.
He mentions some “research” he did by reading the lies in “Inside Climate News” Even the headlines in that scurrilous paper were lies. The ideal source for the flea

Which particular 'statement' would that be Leo?

Surely not the current Climate Communique?

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2015/21-07-15-climate-communique.PDF

FYI this communique is endorsed by 24 scientific societies and organisations from the UK.

Leo

You are very amusing.

You suggest what has been researched by the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et at, and the numerous Universities involved with climate science research are wrong.

You were quite a bit out in relation to 2015 temperature increase:

https://youtu.be/iEjM5yytgg0

Admiral Titley, had been a skeptic in relation to climate change; in a clip he explains issues in relation to satellites:

https://youtu.be/iEjM5yytgg0

The flea has made up something else to assert that I said:” You suggest what has been researched by the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et at, and the numerous Universities involved with climate science research are wrong. “
No, flea, that is a lie.
The flea has no correct procedure for anything he does on the list. I set out his precise words, if I comment on something he says.
He makes up an untruthful, commentary version of what he asserts I said.
His misconduct and ignorance show him to be unfit to participate in reasonable discourse. Nothing he asserts is to be believed.

Leo

As said before, you are amusing.
So when challenged you try and duck and weave; yet, favourite words you use are "fraud" and "lies" in relation to climate science. Those who accept climate science are "fraud supporters".
It is very easy to check, all people need to do is access your user details page.

Your ad homemen attacks are a red flag that you have nothing to offer.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-temperatures-leap-higher-in-january-smashing-records-20160215-gmuv8f.html#ixzz40IOyk2j6

"mhaze, about 2 years ago I spent quite a lot of time researching historic temperature in comparison to contemporary temperature. "

Well if that's true, you must have come across Marcott et al which was the premier record of Holocene temperatures at that time. Yet now you reject it for no apparent reason other than it doesn't support your religious views.

Marcott13 had a number of problems with its data and presentation which had to be resolved and fixed in later amendments. But none of those had anything to do with the early Holocene temperature data. Rejecting it is the victory of hope over fact - you hope its wrong but don't have any idea how to factually justify that hope.