.When you show me the comments I made, flea,I will respond appropriately, as I always do.
There wil be no response to the comments which you fabricated and falsely assert are mine.
What a joke: the flea deludes himself that he has issued a challenge.
His biggest challenge is to stop lying.There is a real challenge for you, flea.
When and where was I supposed to have made the comments, flea?
Supply a copy of the comments from their source.
If you have any science to show any flaw in Carter’s impeccable science, please do not keep it to yourself, unless you like being seen as a loser.

Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley

Leo

You cannot meet the CHALLENGE.

I have seen a huge number of science papers Leo.

But, never have I seen a paper that purports to be serious science quoting an extreme right wing IPA person....John Roskam, or any other political person.

The first sentences from your reference:

"Whether dangerous human-caused climate change is a fact, possibly a fact or a fabrication depends on who you choose to believe. Many of us line up somewhere between probable and possible on this spectrum. (John Roskam, Australian Financial Review, 2006.)"

Roskum is not a scientist; the quote goes back to 2006, much has happened in the meantime.

BUT, you are not able to produce any science experiments to back up what you say, and come up with the same tired comments.

Yes flea, Professor Carter did indeed quote John Roskam, he also quoted Tony Blair.If you had bothered to look at the heading you would know that it deals with the myth of global warming. It deals with the media’s treatment of the myth.
Carter makes clear what he is dealing with, if you read the paper. He says:” , Emeritus Professor Gray, a distinguished climate scientist from the University of Colorado, said recently ‘Observations and theory do not support these ideas (of dangerous human-caused warming”
Your comments, flea, reflect your abysmal ignorance of science, and your failure to even read a paper upon which you have the temerity to make such a feeble minded comment.
Your mental state is reflected in your baseless assertion of comments you say I made, and when asked to supply proof, you refuse to do so. You do not even specify when and where you say the comments were made.
Your mental state is in marked deterioration, flea,or you are lying. The comments were not made by me. It would be a simple matter to prove if I had made the comments but the flea is unable to prove it.
Nevertheless, he issues a delusional “challenge” to me to provide proof of the comments which I never made. They are your comments flea, not mine, so challenge yourself, not me.
You are attempting to distract attention fro the fact that you cannot prove that you are not lying. How about if I challenge you to prove you are not lying about the comments you assert that I made?
If I made the comments, it is a simple matter to prove it, and to prove that you are not lying.

Geoff said:” Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

The comment you copied is by the flea (he calls himself ant), not by me.

That is a difficult question, from some points of view. Robert Carter discusses it in his book, but I moved office and cannot locate it at the moment
There are many different qualifications from which to begin as a climate scientist, so it depends a lot on the work the scientist does. Hansen is a statistician, but much of his work is on climate, so he is regarded as a climate scientist. He is wrong more often than right, but he is a recognised climate scientist.
Tim Flannery, I think, is always wrong, but he has qualifications, and is supported by the climate fraud promoters, who have a powerful influence in climate science.An important factor is whether a scientist is widely recognised as a climate scientist.
Carter is invariably proven to be right, so the fraud promoters deny that he is a climate scientist. They have no science, to counter his, so their dishonest response is to deny that a scientist, world renowned for his expertise in climate, is not a climate scientist. His primary qualification was in geology, and his expertise was in the history of climate, gained largely from examination of sediment and ice cores.
Michael Mann, who concocted the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph is a recognised climate scientist. He sues anyone who tells the truth about him.
I hope this gives you the gist of it.

Leo

You make excuses, you are not able to fulfil the challenge of providing an experiment to support your view.

Eunice Foote, was experimenting with water vapour, air and CO2 around 1856. Between 1856 and 2016 surely you must be able to produce an experiment; rather than, more than nay saying and abuse.