Hi Leo,
there's plenty of scientific evidence, enough to convince the world's entire scientific community, not just the IPCC.

There is not *one* national academy of science that thinks anthropogenic global warming is bunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So you'd better get that tinfoil hat ready, as "they" obviously have some sort of mind-control ray broadcasting 24/7 to constantly befuddle every scientist on the planet. Maybe your "freedom fighters" at What's Up With That can lend you a tinfoil hat, just in case the Enemy turn their mind-ray at you? Otherwise, even you might end up working for "them".

Leo, firstly I made no incorrect assertion.
Secondly you've got the URL wrong: it's http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
Thirdly, nobody denies that nature absorbs and reemits a lot of CO2. But that doesn't absolve humans of the responsibility.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/11,700 = 1.974

No matter how much cherry picked data you post, it won't change the fact that humans are responsible for over 30% of atmospheric CO2.

Aidan,
exactly! If you run a bathtub with the plughole left empty, and have the taps on at exactly the same speed as the water going out, there's no problem. But turn the taps up by 6% and the bath *will* overflow. Our annual emissions are dwarfed by nature but that is entirely irrelevant. We're adding 6% more than nature can absorb each year.

Look out Leo, because it's going to get hot!

Leo,
I am trying to conduct an experiment, and you are the subject.
I will assume you know the difference between matter and anti-matter.

Well, you offer an interesting insight into anti-knowledge.
Are you able to answer the following, from your insights?

From Vostok ice-cores we understand that over the last few ice ages, CO2 atmospheric concentration has varied between approximately 180 ppm at their depths to a maximum of approximately 280ppm at the warmest times. During the holocene CO2 concentration varied little.

From your anti knowledge view, why is atmospheric CO2 concentration now at 400ppm?

Thanks, in anticipation
Tony

Leo

The exact answer I expected from you:

"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."

It really is difficult when you are not able to make any reasonable response in relation the bell shaped graphs as requested, and so make abusive comments.

How do you explain the 5 sigma increase of temperature in the bell shaped graph, Leo.
Observed data for the graph was used, all you can come up with is that it is not science; you provided a nonsense answer.
You keep saying temperature has not been increasing, the graph shows the complete opposite.

While not completely offical, the Japanese Meteorological Agency has pronounced 2015 as the the warmest year. 2014 wa seen as the second warmest year.

Babbling Max says:” there's plenty of scientific evidence, enough to convince the world's entire scientific community, not just the IPCC.”
His untruthful statementshould be disregarded, and note taken of this excellent summary of the situation as follows:

"there is no survey or study that supports the claim of a scientific consensus that global warming is both man-made and a problem, and ample evidence to the contrary. There is no scientific consensus on global warming."

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus.html
When do you leave school, Max? Your puerile school-yard output will not be missed if you acquire some maturity.