There is no "onus of proof"...science does not work that way as LL well knows.

Science makes a proposition and then attempts to disprove it which is why the Watts, Carters and other professional "deniers" have no sway amongst the global scientific community. The onus is on them to disprove that increases in thermal energy in the oceans, rising water and ice melts is caused by other factors.

LL writes on all these blogs in a professional manner, using the "denier" industry tactics that were inherited and very effective for the tobacco industry last century. They attempt to confect an argument that implies there is debate about the science. There is no debate amongst genuine scientists other than how quickly the symptoms will escalate and what quantum of change will occur. When that is ineffective they then resort to claims of fraud and dishonesty amongst the scientific community but again with no logical explanation to substantiate the claims; they hope that amongst the "noise" this creates that the public will befooled.

I am not sure I agree with ANT on the question as to whether a layman can understand the science. It does require not require a very high level of science knowledge to understand.
Simply the sun is the original source of heat at the surface. The sun’s heat for the most part passes unimpeded through the atmosphere and transfers that heat to the surface. The heat raises the surface temperature, which in turn causes it to radiate heat. The radiated heat is of longer wavelengths and is absorbed in part by water vapour, co2, methane and a number of other greenhouse gases. This slows down the rate at which the atmosphere close to the ground cools, as the escape route for the heat is restricted. This is simply an observation, it does not require proof. Any fool should then be able to work out that if you add more GHGs you will further reduce the ability of the surface to cool.

Peter King, the situation is that ant asserted her support for the proposition of AGW, and was asked for a scientific basis for her support. This places the onus on her to supply the scientific basis upon which she relies. Her position may be referred to as bearing the onus of proof. The fact that you are aware of other circumstances where the phrase “onus of proof” is used which has nothing to do with the discussion is irrelevant, and merely shows your lack of comprehension, something which you have evidenced from your first post.

You say:” There is no "onus of proof"...science does not work that way”. Who said it did? I was dealing with the orderly conduct of a conversation or debate.
She has no science to support her position, just as you have none, so you attempt to muddy the waters with irrelevant nonsense.

How about an honest answer, Peter? The science shows that the effect of human emissions on climate is trivial, and does not have the significance necessary to justify it being scientifically noticed.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate

Leo Says
"There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate"

The statement is wrong not matter how often it is repeated.

http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/resources/file/climatechange2010_1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Leo, you say "You seem to be incapable of expressing rational thought, ant."
You either do not understand analogies, or you are lying when you say that you do not understand them. My analogy about three legged dogs was very clear.

Warmair, Leo writes constantly about fraud being perpetrated; he has not shown any proof.
Leo, and his denier mates write off NASA as providing fraudulent information. The very people who have sent men to the moon, exploratory robots to Mars, and a craft heading off beyond Pluto.
NASA has a number of satellites circling the earth; yet, Leo and other deniers say NASA is wrong.
When Leo suggests fraud is taking place I think we can expect more than just wrong opinion from him.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf

Leo, might like to explain how these huge craters are of no concern, created by the breakdown of permafrost; methane is being released (measured) at high worrying rates. Has fraud been committed here, Leo?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/are-siberias-methane-blowholes-the-first-warning-sign-of-unstoppable-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397

The International Science expedition currently on the icebreaker Oden operating in the Laptev sea has also been measuring methane release at worrying levels.
Anybody who writes off these examples as fraud obviously has their brain rammed up their fundamental orifice.