Hi Leo,

You have been hung out to dry. Really, you should stop posting before you get much further behind. Your ad-hominem comments to ant where you call him flea have rebounded on you. You state that you have debating experience. As a debater and an adjudicator, I know that bluster and smokescreens can only take you so far.

You arguments are shallow and consist mostly of denying posts made by ant and by others. You allege fraud constantly but without evidence. You come across as the worst form of climate change denialst: you are without substance in this discussion.

Go away!

Brian, you seem not to have noticed that I do not deny any science, yet you have the gall to call me a denier.
Do you have some science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? So far no one does, so there is no science to deny.
How did you miss that, Brian? You are not adjudicating a debate, and would be a failure if you were, so you have contributed nothing of relevance, just wasted a little of my time on your irrelevant, baseless, nonsense.

Leo, you exemplify "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing".

Good night

Typical fraud-backer's answer, Brian. You have no answers, no science, and are reduced to baseless, puerile, schoolyard level ad hominem.
You are where all fraud supporters have to arrive, shown to be without science and without any basis for your fraudulent assertion of human caused climate change.
Thanks for your confirmation of this. Your next stop is the Hall of Shame.
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so the assertion that there is such effect is baseless, and only made by fraud-promoters like the flea and Brian.As shown in my posts above, the human effect is trivial and not measurable.
What a pathetic spectacle you have made of yourself, Brian.

Leo, there is no science to show the human effect on climate is trivial. Now considering a major part of your argument was based on the refuted claim that humans were responsible for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere (when it's actually about 30%) isn't it time you reexamined your beliefs?

Science shows that CO2 causes warming, as it absorbs (and reradiates down) some of the infrared that's emitted when the sun warms the planet's surface. Science also shows us the planet is warming. There are difficulties in measuring exactly how much warming is due to human activity, as the atmosphere, oceans and planet surface are a very complex system with lots of feedback mechanisms of different sorts (positive and negative, instantaneous and delayed) but there is still substantial evidence to indicate the effects are significant.

Leo
Do you deny the existence of the Keeling Research Station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that has been researching the levels of CO2 for decades?

What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre Industrial times, compared to now?
What are the current readings? How big a percentage increase has there been?

Remember science is about asking questions; not aggressive sophistry.

What evidence do you have that this quote is wrong?

""The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Feb. 25 in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.""

from:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Something of interest Leo, the mainstream Christian Churches in Australia ( Uniting, Anglican, and Catholic) believe in anthropogenic climate change; they even have units/persons studying the matter, by your reckoning they must be committing fraud.