How about this for lying, AJ:You assert that I ”adopt a lot of bluff and bluster in lieu of any evidence for your politically-driven beliefs.”
My assertion has been, and still is, that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, and I have continually pointed out the evasion of the question by fraud backers like yourself. In your case you said it was a “dishonest question”. If this is indicative of your legal approach, you would be done like a dinner. Perhaps you suffer from the same delusion as Reflux. When he receives his customary trouncing, he crows about a non-existent victory.
I have posted science which backs the assertion th CO2 does not govern temperature.
In 2009 Robert Carter and others in a peer reviewed paper, showed that global warming was natural, and not driven by human emissions. In an article, he said:
“the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

You have nothing to back your stupid statement, nor any science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Are you all bluff and bluster, AJ?.
What does “Good-bye” mean in your lexicon? I though it meant we had heard the last of the village idiot.
As to your “dishonest question” remark, you say:” I'm not saying that I didn't, I just can't find it.”. You do not know what you said, do you?, and can’t find it. I know what you said, and I am not going to look for it. I have repeated it many times, over the years, as an example of the mentality of a fraud backer.

The village idiot said:” seem to have ditched your "evidence" regarding the Carboniferous period pretty quickly now”. His reading comprehension is poor. I merely said that his search had produced a better result than his choice, which was the misleading site on climate science run by the unqualified cartoonist. I was not making any point about it, which seems to have escaped the attention of the idiot. He also referred to me as a fellow legal practitioner. I am not a legal practitioner and never represented myself so to be. I doubt that AJP is a legal practitioner. Even the most immature one would not make the remark:” As a fellow practitioner of the law, I hope you don't argue like this in court. I'd have you for breakfast.”

Oh, I agree with you SteeleRedux. I didn’t mean to imply that Leo doesn’t actually believe any of the abusive rubbish he spouts, but sometimes people can lie in such a way so as to not completely and consciously understand that that is what they are doing.

More to the point, though, my suggestion that Leo lied was more aimed at the suggestion that I had to “high-tail it out of there” when the going got rough, when in fact, I have actually answered his stupid question regarding the evidence for the human influence on climate change in a debate that I had once had with that racist loser, LEGO. I linked LEGO to articles dating back as far as 1885 that demonstrated that our CO2 emissions could have a big influence on the planet’s climate.

To that extent, I guess I’m just giving ol’ Leo a little more rope…

Leo,

I note that you still have not quoted where I said what you had alleged what I had said.

Again, not saying that I didn’t, but the longer it takes you to link us back to my alleged claim, the more it appears that you are simply and aggressive little… person who doesn’t always tell the truth.

<<Even the most immature [legal practitioner] would not make the remark:” As a fellow practitioner of the law, I hope you don't argue like this in court. I'd have you for breakfast.”>>

Ah, but we’re not in court now, are we sunshine?

In fact, I’m starting to doubt that you’re even a lawyer with a silly remark like that. So tell us, Leo, what are the elements of s 4 of the Queensland Criminal Code and what are their tests?

Let’s see who really is the liar here, shall we?

Apparently the village idiot practices in Queensland, and his question indicates he is in the criminal jurisdiction.
I practised for 53 years in Sydney, in commercial law and commercial litigation. The Queensland lawyers with whom I dealt, would not have made the unprofessional remark made by AJP, but that does not prove that he is not a lawyer, just that, if he is, he is very immature, and unprofessional.
If it helps yourconveniently poor memory, AJ your assertion was that a friend of yours, who purported to know something of climate science had told you that I had asked a “dishonest question”, so to that extent you distanced yourself from the stupid remark. Nevertheless, you posted it, and earned the title of village idiot.If you think I will waste my time trying to find it, you have earned the title again. You do not deny that you said it, because you know it can surface any time, but you have the temerity to suggest that I may be lying.
I asked that you refer us to science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Robert Carter’s comments, which I posted on this thread, show that there is no such science, and you come up with the lame:”“demonstrated that our CO2 emissions could have a big influence on the planet’s climate.”. Could have? Might have?What scientifically baseless, ineffectual nonsence
That is as bad and ineffective as the duplicitous IPCC claim, that the human effect is 95% certain.
As Robert Carter said, the assertion is a failed hypothesis.

I was waiting for you to nitpick over jurisdiction, Leo. All states have their statute and case law accessible. So saying that you practiced in NSW isn't an excuse.

I still note, too, that you cannot provide a link to this alledged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual.

You realy don'tvhave anything, do you?