Your lies about Carter, donkey, are baseless and pathetic.
I am well aware that the main lie told about Carter by ignorant, lying, fraud supporters, like yourself, is hat he is not a climate scientist.
There is no answer to his science, so fraud supporters make scurrilous attacks on Carter himself.
The U>S> Senate apparently did not make enquiries from lying ignoramuses, like you, before they accepted his sworn testimony on climate. You might have made the difference to his being accepted by the Court as an expert witness on Gore’s spurious climate change film, if anyone listened to your baseless lies.
Surely your nonsense does not even fool yourself, donkey. You have proved that you have no credibility.
Robert Carter was a world renowned climate scientist, unless you accept the word of a lying ignoramus, like the donkey, who has demonstrated his lack of science, and his complete disregard for the truth.
donkey even referred to Skeptical Science as a scientific reference.A lying, fraud promotion site, of no scientific credibility.
You cannot be more dishonest and disreputable than that.
Fraud promoters have no answer to Carter's science:
"Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
.
4. The The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis"
They have no science, so tell scurrilous lies about Carter, like the donkey's stupid lie that Carter had been debunked.

Well done, Leo. You have spent more time on that clown Billyd than he is worth. Just expunge him from your consciousness, as I have tried to do, though that's difficult when he is such a malicious hoaxer, but while he deserves to be humiliated, he is too vacant and ignorant to realise when he has been well and truly done over.

Unbelievable, in your vain attempts to bring credibility to the disgraceful, discredited, sham science of the dismissed geologist Bob Carter you quote ..... Bob Carter!

You couldn't make this up!

The poor man must be turning in his grave.

PS: Please supply qualifications that legitimise your claim that the geologist Bob Carter was a climate scientist.

"Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

* that climate has always changed and always will,
* that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
* that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
* that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but

* that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years."

So, on the last, and contentious, part of that piece, that global warming has ceased since 1998, no-one agrees, and debunking it is easy ...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

http://grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

So now, we can completely dismiss the myth that global warming stopped in 1998, as once again the last year was the hottest on record. So where does that leave the above piece?

"Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

* that climate has always changed and always will,
* that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
* that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
* that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century."

Not much controversy there, in fact, take away the lie and he's close to the mark, but that doesn't sell books, does it? Maybe you should try quoting Dr Hayhoe instead, Leo.

So give in Leo, you're on a loser mate, take up knitting or something constructive, you're too much of a sheep for these type of discussions.

Back again, donkey. Have you lost track of the discussion, or using your usual dishonest tactics to distract from the topic.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You give the lying, unscientific fraud promoting site, Skeptical Science, as a reference for science, which means you have no science to reference.
You have no credibility, no science, and no sense. Global warming did stop in 1998 for about 20 years, disproving the projections of the fraud promoters, like yourself. Any resumption of warming does not alter that fact, so your irrelevant references only reminds us of what an ignoramus you are. You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Dr. Carter has shown your assertions to be nonsense, so you assert lies about Professor Carter, because you can find no flaw in his science.
You can stop now, donkey. You have convinced us that you are a delusional fool, and there is no further or other outcome can result from your pathetic efforts.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, donkey?

A good concise description of the site that the donkey has the gall to give as a “scientific” reference:
” Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html