Reflux, where did I say that you slandered Professor Carter?
I said” Carter refers to himself as a climate scientist, and most would accept his word over yours, as you have clearly demonstrated that you do not tell the truth.:”
I quoted Carter:” . Like most other climate scientists, I possess deep expertise in at most two or three of these sub-disciplines.”
In your customary pig-ignorant manner, again demonstrating your lack of breeding, you have not replied, but responded with a stupid redundant question as to whether I assert that Robert Carter was a climate scientist. I have repeatedly asserted this, and you have failed to disprove it.
You are obviously dim-witted, but must be aware that I assert that Robert Carter is a climate scientist, and he has stated unequivocally that he is. You have put forward no basis to deny it, other than scurrilous lies of which you have failed to disclose the source.

Leo

Quote:

"A range of key climate and weather indicators show the planet is growing increasingly warm, a trend that shows no signs of slowing down, said the annual State of the Climate Report."

And:

"The report confirmed prior announcements that 2016 was the hottest year since contemporary records began, marking the third year in a row that global records were broken planet-wide. Both land and sea surface temperatures set new highs."

From:

http://phys.org/news/2017-08-planet-highs-pollutants-sea.html

Quote:

"Each year from January to June, hundreds of scientists from around the world crunch the numbers on the previous year's climate, reviewing and cataloging everything from the humidity of the atmosphere, to the number and strength of hurricanes in every part of the ocean, to the size of the Arctic sea ice pack."

From:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-highlights/2016

Quote:

"Increasing temperatures have led to decreasing Arctic sea ice extent and thickness. On March 24, the smallest annual maximum sea ice extent in the 37-year satellite record was observed, tying with 2015 at 5.61 million square miles, 7.2% below the 1981-2010 average. On September 10, Arctic sea ice annual minimum extent tied with 2007 for the second lowest value on record, at 1.60 million square miles, 33 percent smaller than average. Arctic sea ice cover remains relatively young and thin, making it vulnerable to continued extensive melt."

From:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/international-report-confirms-2016-was-third-consecutive-year

Leo, you say you were a lawyer; a Judge would have a great laugh at your expense if you were a lone voice in a Court, arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing from thousands of other scientists.

The flea says:” if you were a lone voice in a Court, arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing from thousands of other scientists”.

If my case was correct, and the 450 in the opposition were wrong, I would win the case. With no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, and, of course, there is none, they would lose.
So your remark is very stupid, flea.
But you did agree that you are an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, didn’t you, flea.

Leo

You stated:

"If my case was correct, and the 450 in the opposition were wrong, I would win the case. "

Your case is completely wrong.

My original statement was ....arguing against 450 climate scientists who have been involved in writing a Report, supported through referencing by thousands of other scientists.

....supported through thousands of other scientists by their references (450 + 1,000s).

Such mega Reports use references to research which has been published in peer reviewed Journals.

Do you have a lack of comprehension, Leo?

The flea says:” Your case is completely wrong”
You are not the judge here, flea, you are just an ignoramus, with no idea of what he is talking about. Your opinion has no valid basis. It is based on ignorance, and means nothing
As I have often pointed out, you are not equipped to take part in discussion on the forum.
Your knowledge of how a legal case works is worse than nothing, as you have formed misconceptions, which form an extension of your abysmal ignorance.
The fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, so the rest of their "science" is, like yourself, irrelevant.
Yes, flea, one of your worst disabilities, arising from your ignorance, is your lack of comprehension.
Even imbeciles are able to grasp the fact thct that the correct answer is not reached by counting the number of supporters. As Einstein pointed out, it only needs one person who is right, to prevail over any number of those who are wrong.

Leo

A "very high confidence level" is a technical term defined in the study previously referred. What do you not understand about "... … strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus.”

https://assets.documentcloud.org

When you try to slander people it is a clear indication you have nothng to offer.

You do produce a lot of laughter though, Leo.