Leo, why should I need to provide evidence or proof to you? It would be a futile endeavor since it's abundantly clear that scientific data, logic and evidence good enough for the most conservative and careful scientific institutions in the world - those true jewels in humanity's crown - is not good enough for you.

The fundamentals of human induced climate change are accepted science and are completely in line with accepted science, good enough for the USA's and other leading National Academies of Sciences, for the CSIRO and BoM, - for every institution that actually studies climate. And peak science body of every relevant discipline. It's based on the same physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, geology etc as is incorporated in and underlies the body of knowledge for all those disciplines.

The current true understanding of our climate is something beyond price, giving us clear warning of the consequences of changing our planet's atmosphere - and you trample and spit on it.

Because, Ken, you are asserting something which has no scientific backing, that is why you should provide the science which would justify your assertion.

I know you cannot, because it does not exist.

Simply withdraw your fraudulent assertion about AGW, and you are not required to produce anything.

None of the bodies you mention have produced any scientific backing for their weasel worded utterances. You would know better than I why they have done it, as dishonesty is part and parcel of your presentation, as it is theirs.

Your statement “giving us clear warning of the consequences of changing our planet's atmosphere” is another example of the weasel worded implicit assumption that human activity is affecting global warming.

We are not changing the atmosphere in the manner you imply. Carbon emissions are not pollution and have no measurable effect on climate.

There is no scientific proof of AGW.

Any more stupid questions, Ken?

Ken

What Leo doesn't understand is, that human activity itself will cause the warning of the planet. Also he's right to a point, in that there's no concrete evidence at this time that's reliable, being his main argument. ( corruption still cant be ruled out ) Co2 is just one factor out of many that contributes to IMO....... the changes that were going to happen anyway. Pollution when talking particles per million....can have the volcano affect of cooling the planet, ( I read that somewhere ) However, if Leo is right...were still going to risk the planet and if he's wrong, the same will happen.

Human population is the biggest threat to all and which ever way you look at it...............billions are going to die. Its called extinction......and we have no-where we can escape from it. All the links Ive put on olo are in fact happening right now,

water,food,tree's,habitat,drought,ice-melting,desserts growing,global-extinctions,high-pollution,over-population,war,chemicals,methane-other-gases,plate-movements,volcano's,earthquakes,solar-flairs,tidal-moods,and the BASIC planet is on the move constantly......well that's why its a little hard to judge exactly whats going on.

I have heard every angel to this debate.........and whats why they can put the carbon tax on the table for the simple fact that not one professional can agree on what the hell is going on.

Its a case of your dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't.

However one thing is for sure...........we human-beings are changing it no matter what they all say.

The bigger picture.....is alot more scary.

BLUE

Leo Lane

Not one attribution just opinions only - with no scientific backing.

I would like to see Leo contribute to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as he is so sure he is right.

Please tell us where you get your misinformation from.