The flea gives us a description of lawyers in some parallel universe, bearing no resemblance to our reality. emerity to suggest that you are anything but an unqualified ignoramus, would you, flea?
You say I acknowledged I have no science qualification”. I have no tertiary science qualification, flea. My Secondary Level includes Honours in both Mathematics AND an A Level in Physics. Chemistry was B level, but I expect that puts me way ahead of an ignoramus like you, flea.
Here is another idiotic gem from the ignoramus:” Your comments in relation to Carter are nothing more than a fallacious deferral to authority commentary”.

The amount of greenhouse gas forcing in the atmosphere has been measured since 1979 by NOAA. A huge degree of hubris is required to deny these measures. “
You seem unaware that a peer reviwed paper in 2009 de Freitas et al, of which Carter was an author, showed that the warming was natural, and left no room for the assertion by the fraud promoters of human caused warming. The fraud promoters brought out a rebuttal, Foster et al, which Carter easily refuted, after some difficulty with the publisher, which, outrageously, initially blocked publication of Carter’s refutation of the rebuttal.
The disgraceful behaviour of the fraud promoters was shown in the climategate emails. Make an effort to access facts, flea, before you advertise what an ignoramus you are.
You obviously have no idea what your ridiculous phrase ”fallacious deferral to authority” means, because it is meaningless. It could only have been written by an ignoramus.The peer reviewed paper on climate is the one that bigmouth says does not exist. Just another lie by bigmouth. bigmouth also says Carter was not a climate scientist. No one told the United States Senate that when he gave evidence on climate to them. No one told the Court that, when he gave evidence on the lies in Al Gores film. I wonder why bigmouth did not speak up.Possibly he does not want to be ridiculed, for telling stupid lies.

Hi Ant,
I'm not totally sure what you're asking me, but I'll answer with a quote from one of the main YEC organisations.

"Our organisation absolutely rejects the theory of evolution, but we have done so after carefully scrutinising both the biblical and scientific records. We did not do this lightly. After critically examining what we can learn through operational science [i.e. physics, chemistry etc.] and comparing that to the historical philosophy called evolution, too many lines of evidence point away from evolution and toward biblical creation for us to not accept the latter."

Hi Dan

Physics and Chemistry do not prove the existence of God, they do provide much data in relation to the natural world. They do relate to climate science; many science disciplines show how climate change has had an impact in particular science areas. An example is due to thawing og permafrost in Siberia, anthrax has been found at three locations and humans have had to be treated (2016).

Leo

Thank you, you prove my point, quote:

"The flea gives us a description of lawyers in some parallel universe, bearing no resemblance to our reality. emerity to suggest that you are anything but an unqualified ignoramus, would you, flea?"

Your the one who places climate scientists in such a parallel universe.
When your sentiments about climate scientists are placed in the context of the discipline of law, you react aggressively.

This is what I wrote in relation to another article:

In the past you have stated you are a retired lawyer and acknowledge you have no science qualification. We know that some lawyers develop a criminal history due to misappropriating funds. As a result, it becomes easy for people to say that all those employed as a lawyer are corrupt, tell lies, or create a hoax; it gets pretty grim for lawyers. Especially when those employed as lawyers pride themselves in the work that they do. It becomes harder when groups are paid to rubbish all those involved in working in the law field.
Also, those paid to rubbish lawyers are encouraged to create a climate where people generally are encouraged to be critical of lawyers.

The work lawyers do is highly involved and not really well understood by people in general. Clearly, in such a situation lawyers would be bewildered by the uncalled for criticism. Especially when those doing the criticism have little knowledge about the specialised field of being a lawyer. (OLO, 11 September 2016, 7.25 am).

You say you have the school boy qualifications of: "My Secondary Level includes Honours in both Mathematics AND an A Level in Physics. Chemistry was B level...."
What you don't have is a Phd in Science; your qualification doesn't rate. No doubt if Thomas reads this he will have a good laugh. Check out the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Once again you use the fallacious argument of appeal to authority in relation to your source.

Ant,
I'm guessing that the permafrost might melt regardless of what we believe about why it is melting now.

You speak of 'proof', which is a strong word. Do you think science is good at proving things? I'm particularly thinking of the deeper questions of life; something that isn't mundane. What has science proven lately?

The recent lie by bigmouth, that Professor Robert Carter had published no peer reviewed papers, (not one, according to bigmouth).
Professor Carter has published 100 peer reviewed papers. His publication record is here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
Carter’s science is impeccable, and he has completely demolished the AGW fraud, on CO2, and on human causation.
Fraud supporters, like bigmouth, have no science to support their assertions, so cannot raise any scientific or rational opposition to the truth, as asserted by Carter.. The fraud promoter's tactic is to tell lies about Carter, as typified by bigmouth’s scurrilous, baseless, and easily refuted, lie.
The flea made the baseless comment that my demonstration, through Carter's science, that the AGW assertion fails was a fallacious appeal to authority. This baselessly assumes that Carter is not a recognized expert. Another false assumption by an ignoramus, perhaps influenced by bigmouth's ridiculous lies.