Geodude

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!1i YOU GUYS ARE ALL PATHETIC, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BAN ME!!!!!!!!!! ATOMIKPSYCHO IS A FAG WHO LIKES GOATS!!!!!!!!!!! ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO [much more of the same... ] ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.

Excuse me? You actually believe that I am a sockpuppet! Geez, it seems as if you'll do anything to win an argument. You've already discredited yourself with your lame insults you know.

Gee, can't you be more creative with you insults. Seriously, do you think that I will actually be bothered by that! HA! They are just as pathetic as you are. Thanks, I guess.... I already promised to be more specific when needed. I read them. I have too, but so far most on this thread, except for maybe lucaspa or CDarwin or 1veedo actually done that. I think you should tell that to the rest of the membership.

I'm afraid the reverse is true for you. YOU are nothing but a creationist for believing in junk science. Have you any data to support your claim? Or are you just going to be like everyone else and not think critically about this?

Do you really want a more precise graph? Here: Why don't you contemplate that, instead of making a bunch of baseless assumptions. As you can see, I presented plenty of data here, and now I'm presenting more. I will do so if need to be, since you guys are clearly incapable of seeing the obvious. All I've seen so far is ad hominems from most of you guys, only one or two people here have even bothered to present any data for their position.

Neither did you. And yes I did. Don't project your failures on me.

WHAT!? Just because you can't counter my arguments your just going to call me a troll? That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories. All I did was made the argument that our current global warming theories are bunk, and gave some reasons. You have yet to counter them. But your not interested in critical thinking, are you? When they present information that contradicts the dogma, simply dismiss as troll. Wonderful. Do you, iNow, have any DATA or effective arguments that supports YOUR position. As far as I know, you haven't presented anything, you just threw ad hominems at me and rolled your eyes.

But you haven't presented anything that could adequately counter my points though. Your just trying to save your ridiculous position with more logical fallacies.

Not really, extrapolated over millions, or even thousands of years, CO2 concentrations were either much smaller or much larger. Humans weren't around then. What makes this situation any different?

The volcano was just an example though. There are a lot of other sources of CO2 you know, and not including human ones. CO2 doesn't even keep heat in that well either. Methane, for example, is 25 times more potent. Plus, it spews out a huge amount of CO2 during eruptions, far more than humans do in a single year in that single instant. Keep your ad hominems to yourself. Really, they don't support your position. By this, its already clear that you cannot back up your arguments.

But I already did. It's not my fault if you don't want to look at it. I gave SPECIFIC examples. Well, now your just misrepresenting or misunderstanding, because I did NOT say that! The reasons I gave were not just the sun but also other natural sources such as methane, etc. The amount of greenhouse gases do fluctuate time and again. Remember what I said before, natural sources usually give out a great deal more pollutants than man-made sources. Take a look at some of the volcanoes in Hawaii for example.

I already gave you a reason. And yes it is. What possible reason could there be to justify the paranoia over anthropogenic global warming, of which is obviously trash? Is listening to whatever CNN or Al Gore says your justification? Besides, you just spelled "responsible" wrong.

Oh, I see how it is now. Your only willing to cherry pick data that agrees with your premise, rather than considering other factors. Hardly scientific you know, especially since that you should know to avoid that given your title as a physics "expert".

What, do you expect me to do everything for you? I gave you a list, just stay on the first couple of pages and look through them. and .gov or .edu sites doesn't necessarily mean that they are good, there are plenty of .edu and .gov sites that support all sorts of crackpottery and quackery, just take a look at the alternative medicine department on the nih.gov site. so what? it was sudden enough. It happened on much the same time scale, give or take a couple of decades. The point is it does happen. Why not though? Why would they be insufficient? Certainly greenhouse gases can't have done the job. You know how much more pollution a volcano or natural seepage of crude oil does than any man made sources? A lot more than we have been putting in!