Leo

As per usual you provide an aggressive response when not able to respond to my last comments. My last comments can be summarised by the view that you can have too much of a good thing, plain common sense. Whether you believe the science or not really doesn't make much difference to the results. Scientists are saying that we are now experiencing the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Blomberg shows through graphing what is causing the warming of Earth:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR27SHMKGPUlXaCerlkoYZ5xkm-0kTaJZlca9BkDQfS2nufOu4Rjcv_s7ME

In response to your comment .. "The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour."

Basic science:

"As a greenhouse gas, water vapour serves creates a positive feedback cycle for global warming. This means that the warmer the world gets, the more water vapour will exist in the air as evaporation rates from oceans, lakes, and streams increase.[7]"

http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Water_vapour#Atmospheric_Water_Vapour

"With climate change, Earth is getting warmer as greenhouse gases build up and trap more heat in the atmosphere. These warmer temperatures cause increased evaporation of water from places like oceans, lakes, streams and soil. This leads to higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which means that precipitation events tend to be heavier."

http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2014/12/12/water-vapors-role-in-climate-change/

"The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Where is it demonstrated scientifically that there is too much carbon, flea?
The IPCC attempted this, and failed. They predicted the result of a raised level of CO2, and were wrong, because their application of the science through their faulty models always fails.
I did not reply to your nonsense. It stands to remind us of your ignorance.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Where is your answer to that, the reason that all of your assertions are invalid?

Leo

No science?
Watch these series of lectures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrUfAdcN6ws&t=0s&list=PLFA75A0DDB89ACCD7&index=3

What we are meant to believe is that thousands upon thousands of scientists since the science of climate change had begun in the 1820s are wrong; while you know better, even though you provide no evidence. You are not a scientist!

You provide sophist type responses which you repeat constantly.
I doubt you read, or watch any references provided.

Where are your references?
Just saying something is wrong without evidence is meaningless, a logical fallacy

What I requested, flea, is reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You have not referenced any such science.
You have no science, and your assertions are invalid.
“Carbon pollution” and “denier” are invalid because you have no science to support them. They are baseless, and dishonest, and reflect your complete inability to grasp science. Do you understand that all life on earth is carbon based? Or do you have a mythical group of scientists who say otherwise.
Your baseless, unscientific assertions show your lack of sense, and your incompetence.You are incapable of reasoned sensible discourse.
I ask again for a reference to any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are baseless.

Occasionally you trap yourself into saying something sensible, flea.
You said Just saying something is wrong without evidence is meaningless, a logical fallacy “
Well, almost sensible., if it refers to your inability to provide any evidence of science to show any measurable effect of humans on climate.
You say “at we are meant to believe is that thousands upon thousands of scientists since the science of climate change had begun in the 1820s are wrong; while you know better, even though you provide no evidence.”
When and where did I ask anyone to believe that, flea?I have never said anything so ridiculous.
I have asked repeatedly for you to refer me to any science showing a measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are unsupported rubbish.
You also asked that I prove a negative. Even with your lack of education you should know better.

Leo

You claim to know that thousands upon thousands of climate scientists are wrong; yet, you know nothing about Fourier, wow.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=2163

Quote:

"In 1824 French mathematician and physicist Jean Baptiste Joseph FourierOffsite Link published "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires," Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 27 (1824) 136–67. In this paper Fourier showed how gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the earth. This was later called the greenhouse effectOffsite Link."

You might now question me about Foote and Tyndall, from the 1850s. You might like to ask for references in relation to what fossil fuel companies knew about climate change in the 1970s and "80s.

I can surmise you did not watch watch the lectures from the University of Chicago which discuss the the science of climate change.

You are very aggressive; yet, do not have anything to back up your claims.