The flea says:” When you try to slander people it is a clear indication you have nothng to offer.”
When have I slandered any-one, flea. My descriptions are truthful and factual. You have been invited on more than one occasion to let us know if you can show them to be otherwise, and I have taken your lack of response to indicate your agreement, as I advised you it would. Are you now saying that you were being deceitful?
I am not surprised that you snigger in embarrassment at the ignorant behaviour of yours which I accurately describe in my posts. How typical of an ignoramus like you to make the baseless assertion of “slander”
You have failed to present any reference to science supporting your baseless claims, and continue to refer us to irrelevant garbage.
You will recall that when the fraudulent IPCC first claimed human caused climate change, it was “high confidence, and would be scientifically proven by the “hot spot” in the troposphere,when scientific research proved it which would be the “signature” for human causation.
Naturally, no hot spot was shown, no signature, and no apology from the lying IPCC for their nonsensical"high confidence".
Who do you think you will dupe with the “high Confidence” garbage, flea? Someone as ignorant as yourself, no doubt.

Leo

You state "... it was “high confidence, and would be scientifically proven by the “hot spot” in the troposphere,when scientific research proved it which would be the “signature” for human causation...."

You don't do much research do you, Leo ... a hot spot has been discovered.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=BFB0B4D0F3D1A6AEC91F96E913CA9142.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Or:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

Or

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

I remember reading about the hot spot a couple of years ago, Leo.

The flea says” a hot spot has been discovered.”
Yes, it has, flea, but that was after many false starts, and it did not, as asserted by the fraud promoter prove human caused warming.

I will quote the fraudulent skeptical Science site, since there is no dissent on the existence of a hotspot. The fraud promoters do not even assert that it proves human causation of warming.
“Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

My post was not about the hotspot, flea, but about how fraud promoters, with no science to back their assertion, make false assertions, and label them “high confidence”
You were not answering my post, flea, but your own ignorant misapprehension of it.
You have referred to no science to support your assertions, and refer us to pseudoscience
Your nonsense really is a disgrace.

Leo

You are the one that brought up the issue of a "hot spot".

A quote from your reference:

"When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming. "

The reference you provided had a film clip which stated that making a fuss about a "hot spot" was just a red herring. To be cryptic, according to your reference it cuts two ways in relation to the hot spot.

A very high level of confidence being "... strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus."

The reference I provided earlier does have a very high level of confidence .... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf
Glaciers, permafrost thawing, exploding pingos, trend lines of sea ice extent and volume in Arctic, weather station data, satellite data, greening tundra, domestic water supplies failing, changes in habitat on land and oceans, oceans warming, crops failing, extreme rainfall constantly being experienced, famine being experienced, heat stroke victims, extreme wildfires, drought ... generally features of temperature

A high level of confidence provides for " Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/ordocumentation limited etc.), medium consensus.

More funny abuse when you have nothing to offer.

I did not raise the “hot spot” flea, as you dishonestly assert. I reported the raising of it by the climate fraud promoters,the IPCC, who wrongly asserted that it would be the “signature” for human caused global warming, which, as is admitted even by fraud promoters, like the contemptible Skeptical Science, it is not. You cannot be so ignorant as to fail to see that.
You continue to dishonestly characterise my accurate description of you and your nonsense as “abuse”, and evade any response, which would inevitably highlight your dishonesty. If there is anything inaccurate in my description of you, please let us know what it is, and give up hiding behind your dishonest assertion of “abuse".

Leo

So you are suggesting that Lindzen and Tol have committed fraud, they have been part of the IPCC process.

A number of other sources also present the same type of arguments as Skeptical Science:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

http://www.realclimate.org/The

Presents ethical issues:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/western-canadas-glaciers-losing-ice-at-near-record-rates

Meanwhile glaciers are melting:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/western-canadas-glaciers-losing-ice-at-near-record-rates