Dear Leo Lane,

Come on mate time to give it a rest.

Joanne Nova is another who never claimed bob was a climate scientist even in her eulogy of him.

Even one of OLO's most prolific climate sceptics Peter Lang labelled him as a “non-climate scientist”

“Bob Carter did an enormous amount to help save us all from stupidity. He was one offour non-climate scientists who convinced Senator Steve Fielding (the only engineer in Parliament) that the climate scientists’ projections of catastrophic human caused global warming were not based on sound objective, analysis of the relevant evidence and were highly suspect”
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/

Bob Carter was not a climate scientist to anyone except yourself. This mate puts it fairly in the realm of delusional behaviour. For you to keep saying I slandered him by saying he wasn't is really loony stuff.

Put it to bed my friend before you are strapped to one.

Leo

CNBBC confirms matters I have written about in relation to Siberia:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/siberian-craters-big-releases-of-methane-could-pose-broad-problems.html

""The last time we saw a permafrost melting was 130,000 years ago. It's a natural phenomenon because of changes in the earth's orbit," said professor of earth sciences at the University of Oxford, Dr. Gideon Henderson."

And:

""But what is definitely unprecedented is the rate of warming. The warming that happened 130,000 years ago happened over thousands of years … What we see happening now is warming over decades or a century."

We are therefore seeing a much more rapid collapse of the permafrost, Henderson said."

There are objective matters (data) showing that permafrost is thawing, being witnessed in Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska. The development of mounds/pingos, slumping roads, buildings breaking down, lakes developing, shrubs growing in tundra areas, Islands off Siberia eroding, and "drunken trees", being examples of a warming climate. Permafrost does not thaw after a few hot days, there must be significant warmth over an extended period.

Reflux:”Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).
Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals.
Dr. Carter acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and New Zealand parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm, Sweden. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016

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.
“Science reality. My reference files categorise climate change into more than 100 sub-discipline areas of relevant knowledge. Like most other climate scientists, I possess deep expertise in at most two or three of these sub-disciplines.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2008/11/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control/
You have no basis upon which to address me with familiarity, Reflux. I am not on familiar terms with an ill-bred, fraud promoting purveyor of blatant lies. . You make a bigger fool of yourself by failing to even attempt to refute the basis on which I have shown that you are incorrect in your ridiculous denial that Professor Carter was a world renowned climate scientist. I have backed my assertion with facts. You have no basis for your ridiculous denial, other than ill-bred insults, irrelevant to the question, but demonstrating your ineffectiveness, and inability to conduct yourself in a reasonable, decent manner.

Leo

The New York Times has just released a major report representing the work of thousands of climate scientists.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

It is facile to suggest one scientist's opinions stand up against the report just released, and the thousands of peer reviewed Journal published research since. The IPCC and Carter's comments have been bypassed. A new IPCC Report is in its infancy which will review current published science, and research yet to be properly published.

"The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation and extreme heat events are increasing in most regions of the world and will continue to rise in the future ...." It is given a very high level of confidence, meaning "... strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented etc.) high consensus." Per reference.

Also,

"Alaska and Arctic surface and air temperatures are rising more than twice as fast as the global average." (Very high confidence).

If you argue against "very high level of confidence", you are a fool. Its not the kind of confidence that can be ascribed to an individual article in Quadrant or a book.

The flea has found another nonsense source of climate fraud, and puts up the nonsense proposition that Professor Carter is the only scientis showing that the fraud is baseless.
The document to which the flea refers, in support of the fraud, is labelled with words to the effect:”Do not cite, copy or distribute”
Another reminder that the flea is an irrelevant, unqualified ignoramus, who cannot refer us to any science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, nor any valid criticism of Professor Carter’s null hypothesis, which demolished the fraudulent IPCC attemptat supporting the climate fraud with its invalid hypothesis.
What a time-wasting clown the flea constantly proves himself to be.

Leo

This reference of yours was completely wrong:
You have not been able to defend a reference you provided in relation to sea ice extent in 2016 which was subsequently published in WUWT. It was completely nonsensical and at best could be seen to emanate from ignorance. Later data completely demolishes your reference.

In commenting about Dr Carter you provide an example of appealing to authority.
Dr Carter and the IPCC are old news, tens of thousands of research papers have been published since (Powell et al).

In relation to climate science you bring in the notion of a null hypothesis, it produces the responsibility to provide evidence.

Two references in relation to Baffin Island were provided. They showed how quite current research displays how the medieval warming period has been completely overstated by deniers. Greenland is adjacent virtually to Baffin Island and Greenland is seen to prove the medieval warming period was warmer than currently. Baffin Island research shows that to be a nonsense.
The inane response was that it was not science, shown to be wrong.

You are not able to come up with any meaningful commentary in relation to the new report created by thousands of scientists referenced above.

Amusingly, you become abusive which is meant to be a meaningful comment; anybody with an ounce of insight can understand you offer nothing.

The latest reference provided was published to by pass Trump and his band of deniers. When a mega report suggests that particular points have a very high level of confidence it takes a fool to suggest otherwise.

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