Billyd,

Are you aware that the quotes you posted were not BY Carter but where ABOUT Carter in a traditional hit piece in (y)our ABC written by a politician who, though highly credentialed, has no climate change background.

So either you were incapable of understanding the article or you tried to slip things under the table by insinuating they were Carter quotes. I suspect the later since you didn't post a link which is always a give-away that something underhanded is being done. Although its not beyond the realms of possibility that the article was just too complex for you.

This is the article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

Hilariously you complain that " Once again you rely on a quote, with absolutely no scientific proof backing it up, from a GEOLOGIST, not a climate scientist in any way,"

while relying on a quote from a politician. Oh dear!

Yes, I am fully aware, here's the whole link ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

.... and here's his Wiki bio, which PROVES he has no scientific climate qualifications ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

The man was a shonk, had NO credibility at all, and was kicked out of his Uni job.

Quote: "In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[35] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments."

Dishonest too, just like Leo, fanboy of the cranks.

As to Barry Jones, did he post anything scientific? Or are you saying only climate scientists can comment?

If so, where are YOUR credentials?

Come on Leo, I'm still waiting for your scientific data, you do have some, don't you??

Of course not, Carter made it up, for money, and fools like you take it all in.

Like his 1998 nonsense. 1998 was a hot year, the few years following were cooler, so carter claimed, in 2008, that the world was cooling. How dishonest must you be to compare a spike year in isolation and claim a period of cooling?

Here's a graft of the true warming, note the 1998 spike, and the continuing upward trend after. And that's not counting the five hottest years ever, since that graph was made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-30/metoffice_globaltemp.jpg/39306

The man was a FRAUD, and his bio proves he had NO climate credentials whatsoever ...

"He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons) in geology from the University of Otago in 1963 and returned to England to complete a Ph.D. in paleontology"

You are a FOOL Leo, for being fooled by this charlatan.

Peter, you see this is the repeating pattern.

We get a warmist starting a new thread with a patronising lecture about science.

There's only one problem. The standard method is to assume that everyone must assume the warmists'premises as a precondition of the discussion.

Then when challenged as to evidence or reason, the warmists either
1. slink off, or
2. simply *repeat* the standard approach of personal abuse, assuming what is in issue, appeal to authority, misrepresentation, non sequitur, and in short, every fallacy in the book.

It should not be necessary to take the discussion back to the primary level of *requiring* you to affirm that your propositions must comply with the principles of logic.

But it is, because the next step is checkmate, and you know it, which is why you evade either by not answering (you), or by ignoring the question while renewing the presumptuous insulating abuse (billyd).

That's it. That's all you've got.

So in the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing.

All you have is a complaint that other people don't share your belief system, while you refuse to engage.

But when asked for reason or evidence ... zip, nada, nothing, pfffft. A complete fail.

Just watch.

He Billyd
1. Do you understand that a proposition that is irrational is not and cannot be scientific?
2. Do you understand that the proof of a scientific proposition cannot take the form of assuming that everyone must agree as a precondition of entering into the discussion?

Do you understand that, or not?

Far from "scientific", what you're saying is not even rational. You can't prove your case or disprove mine, and I have proved mine and disproved yours.

Go ahead. Answer my numbered questions.

Get a life Jardine, you make no sense at all, and refusing to acknowledge your gobbledegook does not confer any sort on victory on you.

You are another climate scientist without credentials, just like the rest of the denying sheep on here.

[Deleted for abuse]