The flea says:” When answers are not available to anthropognic climate change science by contrarians, “
You are the only one without an answer, flea. Are you calling yourself a contrarian, now?
When have you supplied anything but irrelevant nonsense. When did you supply a reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate?You have posted no answers, no science relevant to the topic, and shown a complete lack of any comprehension of science.
You represent yourself to be a geologist now, after all these months of representing yourself as unqualified. How did that happen?

Leo

Funny how you know better than the various scientists I quote.
Being abusive and providing no evidence to support what you say is meaningless.
If you were able to discount Dr Burger's research with empirical evidence that would settle the matter. Except, there are other studies completed in Russia and China in relation to the Permian mass extinction which can be found on google scholar.

Science operates on the basis of finding how a hypothesis is wrong; once a hypothesis is found to be supported; then, further refinement of results continues. Just saying something is wrong is an opinion which doesn't cut it against the scientific method.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00083-9

Quite:

"Here we identify the initial emplacement pulse of laterally extensive sills as the critical deadly interval. Heat from these sills exposed untapped volatile-fertile sediments to contact metamorphism, likely liberating the massive greenhouse gas volumes needed to drive extinction."

The work of Dr Bruger fits in with the work of Burgess et al (referenced above) further by identifying the chemical processes, and the resulting creation of pyrites and mercyury etc. These support the view of high acid in the Ocean and high levels of greenhouse gases, and hugh warmth.

Further references:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X08007292

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/3/195/130777/climate-warming-in-the-latest-permian-and-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html

Numerous other references can be see through using google scholar.

The flea says:” Funny how you know better than the various scientists I quote.”
Yes, flea, give us some examples, which you noticed. It is no doubt because you always quote low grade scientists. Your complete inability to grasp any understanding of science no doubt contributes to your ludicrous situation.
We are still awaiting your reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, so you are still a dishonest fraud supporter..
That is an accurate description of your situation, so do not start your dishonest whining about “abuse”. If you have any honest criticism of the description of your situation, please advise its substance.

Leo

You say: "It is no doubt because you always quote low grade scientists."

I haven't quoted Stephen Hawking; but, he certainly subscribed to anthropogenic climate change.
Joseph Fourier, who developed mathematical theorems still used, and suggested that the atmosphere had an influence on warming Earth in the early 1800s, low grade?
Eunice Foote, with her experimentation in the 1850s on the behaviour of gases to heat, low grade?
It has been suggested that Professor Jennifer Francis should be nominated for a Noble Prize for her work on Arctic Amplification, low grade?
In 2018, we have Dr Burger displaying chemical changes in rock formations between the Permian and Triassic epochs, low grade?

However, we have Leo Lane who knows better than all peak Science Agencies and scientists at the top of their discipline on anthropogenic climate change. The same Leo Lane who made a reference unattainable by knocking off the "h" of "http".

Quote from Leo Lane's comment at 12 March, 10.26pm:

”... you suggest that ttps://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ does not correspond to science? The Report is supported by numerous peer reviewed research articles published in Journals”.

The flea says:” we have Leo Lane who knows better

All I do is point out that they have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so their assertions are baseless and fraudulent. When you grasp that, you might stop putting them up for ridicule, but you may as well remind people that I have shown what nonsense you post.None of what you post is relevant without science to show a measurable human effect, so the scientists so far are irrelevant
Jennifer Francis was referred to by the fraud backing ABC as a “kick ass scientist”, whatever the clowns at the ABC mean by that. Her fraud supporting science on the Arctic has been shown to be baseless and invalid,
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.





TMeteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

……………. ONCLUSIONS
FV (2012) cited in the introduction of this article is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/meteorologist-trashes-jennifer-francis-extreme-weather-theory/
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

The flea says:” we have Leo Lane who knows better than all peak Science Agencies and scientists at the top of their discipline on anthropogenic climate change”

You do not have to repeat that fact, flea, as all I do is point out that they have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so their assertions are baseless and fraudulent. When you grasp that, you might stop putting them up for ridicule, but you may as well remind people that I have shown what nonsense you post.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/meteorologist-trashes-jennifer-francis-extreme-weather-theory/
Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.

Leo

Meteorologists are not climate scientists.
To try to knock over the science of anthropogenic climate change with blogs might satisfy you Leo; except, one Meteorologist down playing climate change doesn't cut it. Really, is that the best you can do?

Professor Francis's paper of 2012 was critiqued, it is now 2018 and she has worked further on her hypothesis. Your reference displays no citations underpinning the view of Chuck Wiese.

Try google scholar typing in "Arctic Amplification", 80,800 results, unlike the standard google the results stay with the specific request.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=0&q=arctic+amplification&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Leo, you keep using the word "fraud"; but, where is it really emanating from?