Bazz

I am highly dubious about that claim there is not enough fossil fuels to increase CO2 to the levels quoted by the IPCC. I was not able to find any article supporting the claim, using the phrase you suggested.

The figures I have seen elsewhere suggest that if we were to burn all the know reserves of fossil fuels we would be able to push CO2 levels well above 1000 ppm.

http://theconversation.com/methane-and-the-risk-of-runaway-global-warming-16275

http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

It is worth noting that there are other factors besides just the available fossil fuels and they are:-

1 land clearing is also adding considerably to CO2 emissions.
2 As temperatures increase the capacity of the ocean to absorb further co2 declines.
3 Methane hydrates may become unstable also research is being done to utilise the vast deposits of it for fuel.

Warmair,
It is on the University of Uppsala Global Energy Systems web
site. I no longer have the link. I think the original may have been in
Swedish but I think Michael Lldeli (got that wrong) did a translation.
It was about three years ago.
Start here;

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/

That is the author's blog.
It was published in a scientific publication on energy, but again I cannot remember.
Anyway send Prof Aleklett an email.

Warmair

I only had a question. I am not debating anything and have no arguments.

Yes I call into question your ability to get on with people. It is far kinder than calling you stupid or dishonest when you insult my intelligence by deliberately twisting what I have asked and by refusing to answer my question by going into explanations that are silly and unrelated my question.

If you cannot understand my question or don't want to answer it then don't answer it.

It is a very simple question.

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... with data not modelling.'

So far your answers are no.

Warmair hs been asked to supply a reference to science which demonstrates that human emissions affect climate. He has failed to do so and should be regarded as admitting that he knows of no such science.

The IPCC indirectly make the same admission when they make the puerile statement that it is “94% certain”. After outlay of billions of dollars on scientific research which produced no demonstration of a human effect, would a better guess not be that it is99.9% certain that human activity has no significant effect on climate?

warmair and the other fraud backers should stop flogging a dead and disreputable horse. After the education hey have received on this list, their persistence evidences dishonesty rather than ignorance.

Ah ha. This is where all the fun it to be had! Bonza!

Let's start with an easy one.

Dear Leo Lane you old reprobate. I haven't had the pleasure of your company in a while.

Let me get this straight. You don't believe there has been any evidence to show that humans have influenced global temperatures. Okay, fair enough, but by the same measure do you reject the evidence put forward by many on your side that there is in fact no upward trend in global temperatures?

For instance when Cohenite gave us a link showing a downward trend in lower troposphere temperatures did you look at it and say 'Well that's another reason why I don't believe in global warming'? Or didn't you bother because your mind is firmly made up?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

I mean is it just a total rejection of evidence based science or is it cherry picking to fit your world view? I happen to think it is the first but you could prove me wrong by telling me what it would take for you to accept that the world is warming and that humans are having an influence on the world's climate?

I suspect you actually can't but hell, I'm not perfect. The floor is yours old son. Go for it.

witless Goebbels has entered the building