“"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. “

What a ridiculous statement for you to make, warmair, just after you put up all those links, none of which disclose science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You are as irrelevant as ant, who has no science, either, so fills her posts with pointless rubbish.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The IPCC when it made the stupid statement some years ago, that it was "99% certain" promised scientific disclosure of a "hotspot" which would be the "signature" of human caused warming. All these years later there is no "hotspot" shown, no "signature", and no apology for a baseless, stupid statement, just another stupid statement that it is "94% certain, and no science to justify their nonsense.
See where dishonesty takes you, warmair?

Just repeating statements Leo does not make them true.
Likewise, it is easy to make allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Please provide evidence where climate scientists have been found guilty of providing fraudulent information. Your problem though is that fraud has not been discovered in relation to climate change scientists. There is a psychological process of projection going on. Lewandowsky et al are right on the money, previously referenced.
You might like to comment on the methane blow holes also, Leo.
But, remember where your brain is positioned if you try and deny the worry about methane blowholes. Your brain needs to be firmly rammed up your fundamental orifice if you try and discount that worrying find.

As stated earlier NASA has been exploring space, NASA believes in climate science; yet, you claim to know better

The science is well founded; comments made by a non scientists make no difference to the viability of science.

Quote Leo
“There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The IPCC when it made the stupid statement some years ago, that it was "99% certain" promised scientific disclosure of a "hotspot" which would be the "signature" of human caused warming. All these years later there is no "hotspot" shown, no "signature", and no apology for a baseless, stupid statement, just another stupid statement that it is "94% certain, and no science to justify their nonsense.”

The so called tropical hotspot has nothing much to do with GHGs. It is simply an expected result from increased surface temperatures, as we can be reasonably sure surface temperatures have risen the point is irrelevant, anyway the data is just is not good enough to come to any conclusion.

I don’t why sceptics keep bringing it up unless they are trying to show climate models are wrong, in which case a better example would be that the arctic is warming a good deal faster than the models predict.

The most convincing evidence that CO2 and GHGs are the cause of global climate change over the 50 years or so is the cooling of the stratosphere while the surface warms, which is a specific prediction of climate change theory.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.htm

warmair says:“The so called tropical hotspot has nothing much to do with GHGs. It is simply an expected result from increased surface temperatures, “ I never said it did, warmair. That was the IPCC.

IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predicted the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. No such “hotspot” exists. The computer models were wrong. What a surprise.

The article to which ant refers sets out specious reasoning to disagree with the IPCC statement “ “ that there is "medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."

There is, of course, no basis except conjecture, to link global warming to extreme weather events, just wishful thinking of fraud=backers, and certainly no science.
The “proof” ant seeks exists is the failure to produce any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. It is ludicrous to deny my statement, and refer to more baseless statements of human caused warming, as if it were science. This is what warmair did, with his plethora of links..

When the science shows that the human effect is negligible, how does it make any sense to say it is “highly likely” that global warming is human caused? This is the nonsense that warmair links to, when he baselessly denies my statement of the science.
Nature produces 97% of CO2, while humans produce 3%. Is it any wonder that the human effect is negligible?

Quote Leo
“Nature produces 97% of CO2, while humans produce 3%. Is it any wonder that the human effect is negligible?”

The above I understand is based on these figures, the atmosphere contains 720 billion tonnes of co2, and annual human emissions of 22 billion tonnes of CO2. (by the way we are now up 36 billion tonnes annually)

Surely Leo you can understand if you keep adding 3% annually to your bank balance over time it will grow substantially.

The facts are the level of co2 in the air in 1850 was 280 ppm, today it is close to 400 ppm. That is an increase of over 40%. All of which is attributed to human emissions.

Leo, like I stated before, you know better than NASA.
NASA does attribute CO2 with climate change.
Experiments have been complete to show the relationship between light and CO2. It is possible to show the relationship in very simple experiments in the classroom of any school.
Your not a scientist Leo, but you have the gall to say what comprises science and what does not.
Like stated before the is projection going on.