Direct measurement of CO2 effect:

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm calling him a liar. Either that or he is relying on the unreliable again and is afraid I will prove it is bunk. Either way he is being evasive and you are an apologist for his deceptiveness. He is too much of a coward to give his source of information. That is evident.

I am not going to waste hours of my time to search for where other posters gave you this information just to satisfy a moron like you. So, instead, with a quick google search that only wasted 2 mins of my time (You must be disappoint that I didn't waste more time ) , here is some sources of my own:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

http://rootsafrikiko.com/m/articles/view/Climate-scientists-rebuff-skeptics-arguments-against-2014-warmest-year-claim

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
"...Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
..."

I ask again, according to you, can scientists give a reasonable estimate of what proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from man made sources? YES OR NO? This is a very simple question that even a moron like you must be able to answer.
If NO, why not? why would it be so hard, for example, for them to estimate the amount of gas and oil and coal we have burned so far and then just doing the maths to estimate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from that source? Just tell us...

Originally posted by humy
I am not going to waste hours of my time to search for where other posters gave you this information just to satisfy a moron like you. So, instead, with a quick google search that only wasted 2 mins of my time (You must be disappoint that I didn't waste more time ) , here is some sources of my own:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

...[text shortened]... he maths to estimate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from that source? Just tell us...

If you don't have a source of information just admit you made it up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you don't have a source of information just admit you made it up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

So you still haven't looked at the National Geographic post I linked?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm calling him a liar. Either that or he is relying on the unreliable again and is afraid I will prove it is bunk. Either way he is being evasive and you are an apologist for his deceptiveness. He is too much of a coward to give his source of information. That is evident.

You are calling him a liar without even going to the links we listed. That makes YOU a hypocrite. Tell me, I doubt you can, but tell me, who is paying you off to make you support the ridiculous stance that CO2 and mankind is not causing climate change?

If you make a graph of the increase in CO2 over the past 50 years, and make another graph of the increase in population over the past 50 years, they will show the same pattern. Since people breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, the pattern is what you would expect. If there were other factors causing an increase in CO2, you would expect the CO2 graph to show a steeper increase than the population graph.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are calling him a liar without even going to the links we listed. That makes YOU a hypocrite. Tell me, I doubt you can, but tell me, who is paying you off to make you support the ridiculous stance that CO2 and mankind is not causing climate change?

I didn't see any National Geographic link. You are confused as always. You are also paranoid. There is no conspiracy to buy me off. No evidence is simply no evidence. There is no proof to justify your alarmist propaganda. Skeptical Science is not a credible source of information. They lie and don't allow any dissenting views or debates of any kind on there website. At least I posted a debate with differing views. Pick apart Singer's statements if you like. Unlike Humy, I'm not fearful of listing my sources of information. I won't waste my time with Humy anymore because he is still posting skeptical science links that I have already proven to be bunk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I didn't see any National Geographic link. You are confused as always. You are also paranoid. There is no conspiracy to buy me off. No evidence is simply no evidence. There is no proof to justify your alarmist propaganda. Skeptical Science is not a credible source of information. They lie and don't allow any dissenting views or debates of any kind on the ...[text shortened]... es.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

...I have already proven to be bunk.

No, you have stated that you believe it to be bunk.

You haven't proven anything, at all, other than your being a whackadoo conspiracy nut.

Forbes is not a credible source of information, and there are no valid dissenting views on
climate change in the same way that there are no valid dissenting views on whether the
Earth is flat or spherical.

If you don't like the people telling you the truth. that's just tough ****.

Originally posted by John Osmar
If you make a graph of the increase in CO2 over the past 50 years, and make another graph of the increase in population over the past 50 years, they will show the same pattern. Since people breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, the pattern is what you would expect. If there were other factors causing an increase in CO2, you would expect the CO2 graph to show a steeper increase than the population graph.

NO NO NO The CO2 we breath out cannot possibly account for the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2!
This is because the carbon in the CO2 we breath out comes from the carbon in our food which in turn comes (indirectly ) from the CO2 plants breath in via photosynthesis (even if you eat only meat, the carbon in that meat originates from photosynthesis in plants at least if you go back far enough in the food chain ) thus the NET contribution of global atmospheric CO2 levels from humans merely surviving (i.e. NOT from burning fossil fuels or cutting down trees etc ) and therefore breathing over each, say, ~year period, is close-enough zero even while the human population is increasing!

Thus we would NOT expect there be a measurable increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels from merely the human population increasing (i.e. NOT from burning fossil fuels or cutting down trees etc ) and thus breathing out more CO2!

However, in contrast, we WOULD expect a measurable increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels from that human population burning vast amounts of fossil fuels since the carbon from fossil fuels, although also originally came from plant photosynthesis, did so millions of years ago rather than, say, within the last year. Thus, over, say, a year period, or even a 100 year period, there IS a measurable NET increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels; AND approximately that which is actually observed in the actual data!

In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that we burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees etc, with all else being equal (which, of course, they are not ), the human population merely increasing could result in a net decrease in global atmospheric CO2 levels! -albeit by an extremely insignificant and probably undetectable amount. This is because an increase in human population would generally result in an increase in biomass in human population thus an increase in the carbon at any one moment of time locked away from the atmosphere and in that biomass! Pity that wouldn't even come close to being enough to counter the vast quantities of CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

you might like to see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Originally posted by googlefudge

...I have already proven to be bunk.

No, you have stated that you believe it to be bunk.

You haven't proven anything, at all, other than your being a whackadoo conspiracy nut.

Forbes is not a credible source of information, and there are no valid dissenting views on
climate change in the same way that there are no valid dissent ...[text shortened]... lat or spherical.

If you don't like the people telling you the truth. that's just tough ****.

Skeptical Science claimed there was no CO2 lag and that Singer was wrong when he claimed there was. Singer was right. Skeptical Science lied.

The Forbes link does have a debate so you are wrong. Skeptical Science does not allow debates. They have single sentence rebuttals that are often outright lies. They have no credibility.

Much of the alarmist's claims are based on climate model predictions. Climate models are known to be unreliable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Skeptical Science claimed there was no CO2 lag and that Singer was wrong when he claimed there was. Singer was right. Skeptical Science lied.

The Forbes link does have a debate so you are wrong. Skeptical Science does not allow debates. They have single sentence rebuttals that are often outright lies. They have no credibility.

even if some website lied about the CO2 lag, so what? Just like I have already explained, science has explained that lag and it is perfectly and completely consistent with the CO2 greenhouse theory and Singer has been wrong about many things. All the most up to date climate models would not only predict man made global warming but also, without contradiction, would predict CO2 lagging.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Skeptical Science claimed there was no CO2 lag and that Singer was wrong when he claimed there was. Singer was right. Skeptical Science lied.

Where?

I cannot find anywhere on the site that says that historical data doesn't show a CO2
lag for past temperature rises.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Given the fact that they both acknowledge and explain this common knowledge, it is
in fact you who is lying.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Much of the alarmist's claims are based on climate model predictions. Climate models are known to be unreliable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm

No, they are not known to be unreliable.

This will not become true simply because you keep falsely asserting it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Much of the alarmist's claims are based on climate model predictions. Climate models are known to be unreliable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm

That paper has been retracted by the journal that published it, and the editor resigned as a result.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements. ......

Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning
that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review
process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be
published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become
aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have
I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have
already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which
was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a
minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it
essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review
process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly
accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to
make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Originally posted by humy
even if some website lied about the CO2 lag, so what? Just like I have already explained, science has explained that lag and it is perfectly and completely consistent with the CO2 greenhouse theory and Singer has been wrong about many things. All the most up to date climate models would not only predict man made global warming but also, without contradiction, would predict CO2 lagging.

"Singer has been wrong about many things."

What is your source of information?