Leo: "We are well aware that you have no science to show any measurable effect by human emissions on climate."

IPCC, much?

Dude, is it fun gathering around your favourite denialist virtual campfires with all your echo-chamber, telling each other scary ghost stories about a worldwide conspiracy of all those evil scientists? Or have you drunk the cool-aid and are actually a true believer, and are genuinely frightened every time the news reports another record temperature? Are the news readers in on the conspiracy as well? Do you wear a tinfoil hat, or just rub yourself in peanut butter every night to comfort yourself, that YOU are still in control and the world media conspiracy hasn't got to you yet? Is there a club with a secret handshake?

Dude, get a grip. You're losing it.

J S

When you supported Alice, it is tantamount to being a climate change denier.

Your comment:

"As @ Alice Thermopolis indicates, all possible sources of warming should be scientifically measured and assessed in order to find solutions to human influenced climate change."

That's what climate scientists are constantly doing.

The ARM study has measured temperature in a natural environment and explains warming.
They have found that CO2 and radiated infrared react and create warmth. It is measured in square meters and there must be billions of square meters around the planet.

Babbling Max Puce refers us to the IPCC. I asked for science, not ridiculous statements of human caused climate being “95% likely.”
The science as I have set out before, is that the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
All that the IPCC have shown is that the CO2 science predicted global warming, because of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere almost 19 years ago, when global warming stopped.

No use you getting a grip, Max, you have lost it, it is gone. only your nonsensical babble is left.You may think your nonsense deflects us from the fact that you have no science to justify your position, but it just underlines the fact that you are attempting to support a baseless fraud.

Leo

Previously you provided a reference which was retracted in relation to the proportion of man created CO2.
ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s and 1980s were pushing the view man created climate change. Elsewhere you initially stated this was wrong; in the end your comment was that ExxonMobil management were bullied into making such statements.
You are not a scientist; but, claim to know what is science and what is not.
You very occasionally provide references which have been bypassed or written by non scientists.
Continually repeating comments that are wrong is a logically fallacious type argument.

It will not be long before 2015 is officially declared the warmest year since records began to be kept.

The quite short referenced clip shows what has been happening with temperature.

The short caption going with the clip states...

"- The first shows the climate moving into a non-linear mode somewhere between 2001-2011 according to numbers directly from a Jim Hansen paper:"
The film discusses observed data.

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/presentation

Please provide sound evidence that the bell curved graphs shown in the clip are wrong.
Being unable to so can be considered a datum point for any further discussion.
All graphs from reputable sources show increase in temperature since records began to be kept.

Leo

The last url address doesn't work, my apologies, try this one showing same set of bell shaped graphs:

https://vimeo.com/128141163

The premier of the film "Climate Hustle" did not go to plan. The question is why critics were stopped from watching. That suggests the deniers were not confident in their own film.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/30/fakery-paris-red-carpet-premiere-marc-morano-s-climate-hustle-documentary

But, please give a critique of the clip, using references from sound sources.

Yes, flea, with no science to support your position, all that you offer is a baseless criticism of a film telling the truth about the climate fraud.
You make the baseless assertion that the reference I gave was retracted. When Aiden made the same incorrect assertion, above, I replied( see above):” This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.”
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf”
The new paper says 3.75%, Watts’ fresh calculation is 2.9%.”
Are you lying again, flea, or do you just not read the material, and make up your comments, fact-free.
There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Your comments and references on warming are irrelevant. It is not human caused.