Back again, donkey, still with no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, just some more stupid questions to remind us what a donkey he is.
Perhaps the donkey claims to be a climate scientist.
What are your credentials, donkey?
My guess is billyd(for donkey) the troll with no science.

Still no science Leo? Where's your proof that humans have had no effect on temperature rise? And not another ridiculous diatribe from another dead, disgraced geologist.

Show us the science behind your immeasurable 3% claim.

You're a sheep, just like the others of your ilk on here, a pretend expert, who claims to know better than real climate scientists, spruiking crap on here you garnish from fossil fuel sponsored quacks.

So come on, man up, show us the SCIENCE, and not another quote.

I posted the proof, donkey. Surely you remember your failed attempt to rebut it. I note that, unsurprisingly, considering your ignorance, your science credentials, which I requested, are none
You had, as usual, no science, to support your pathetic rebuttal attempt. Your attack was by way of scurrilous, baseless lies about the scientist who demonstrated that the human caused global warming hypothesis fails.
it is worth remembering the science in his comment on the failed CO2 hypothesis of the mendacious IPCC, which you seem, in another demonstration of your ignorance, to have mistaken for science. The quote, from then proffessor Robert Carter is:
“our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate.html

So donkey, you rely on a failed hypothesis. You have no comprehension of science, and persist in displaying your ignorance, as in your request:” show us the SCIENCE, and not another quote.
.I often quote the scientist who is the source of the science to which I refer. Unlike the ignoramus who shows that he has confused CO2, and global warming, and is unable to make a coherent statement.Human contribution of CO2 is 3%. The donkey thinks human contribution to global warming is 3%. His ignorance is pathetic.

Hahaha! Once again you rely on a quote, with absolutely no scientific proof backing it up, from a GEOLOGIST, not a climate scientist in any way, shape or form, and a DISGRACED one at that, who was kicked out of his university post for being BONKERS!!

Then you post a link from the same bonkers GEOLOGIST!

You couldn't make this up!

"Human contribution of CO2 is 3%." PROVE IT!

Where is your science? There isn't any, your GEOLOGIST told you and you keep repeating it ..... 'Pretty Polly!''Who's a pretty boy then?'

Here's a quote for anyone unfamiliar with the Nutty Professor ...

"Naturally, I would turn to geologists for advice on brain surgery, dentistry, accounting or religion, but in the field of climate science I lean towards meteorologists."

And another ....

"It is true that the Hadley Climate Centre in the UK isolated the calendar year 1998 as the hottest on record for aggregate atmospheric temperature. On the other hand, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) at NASA asserts that 2005 was even warmer, with an average global surface temperature of 14.77 degrees C, with the 1998 figure being 14.71 degrees C. A tropical El Niño contributed 0.2 degrees in 1998, but 2005 had no Niño effect.

However, the fourteen year period 1995-2008 included thirteen of the hottest years on record, the exception being 1996. The fundamental question is, 'Which factor is more significant? A spike on a chart representing a single year, or a longer trend line over a decade or more?"

Peter, Billyd

Do you understand that a proposition that is irrational is not and cannot be scientific?

More ignorant remarks from the donkey, who has no grasp of science, but continues to make a fool of himself with his stupid remarks,
Robert Carter was the author of more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals. He contributed regular letters, opinion pieces and interviews to newspapers, nationalmagazines and other media, and regularly engaged in public speaking on matters
related to his research knowledge.

He had 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher,
marine geologist and environmental scientist, and held degrees from the
University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of
Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999..

He gave evidence before a US Senate committee on global warming, and gave expert evidence in the case involving Gore’s video, pointing out 19 lies in “An Inconvenient Truth”.
He kept up current research amongst other things, on climate change, and sea-level change.
His science is impeccable, and has not been refuted, despite the efforts of the fraud promoters, whose case Carter has completely demolished.The climategate emails showed their concern, and their unethical attempts to counteract Carter in 2009, when he was co-author of a paper which showed that warming asserted by the fraud promoyers to be human caused, was, in fact, natural.

Do you have any basis for your ludicrous, false comments, donkey, other than the customary climate fraud supporter’s lies and dishonesty?
You really are a waste of space, donkey