"When will you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans are responsible for it's increase?"
I don't think I have ever said or implied that CO2 was not classified as a greenhouse gas.
So why are asking when will I do this?
What is the point of asking this question?
As far the second part of your question. There is no doubt that humans produce CO2. But this different issue than whether human are responsible for it's increase.
So, I will admit that human are solely responsible for the increase of global CO2 when I'm given evidence of this which convinces me of it.
Now, I am aware that one can measure human footprint of CO2 in the atmosphere. And I realize that you believe that this alone is compelling evidence that doesn't need any other evidence.
I think you are retarded for holding such a belief, and you think I am as retarded plus probably criminal or at least vile, for not accepting what you think explains that Human activity is solely responsible for all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the time Global began being measured accurately. I.e:
What do you expect me to think, when I point out obvious and stark things wrong with such assumption.
For example:
If the ocean warms does it add more CO2 to the atmosphere than it absorbs.
Or how about if the arctic warms does it emit more CO2?
In different instances you claim that not only is this possible but it's your main concern regarding a some runaway affect.
Yes, I know that you blame all warming of oceans or arctics on human activity. But let me point out what should obvious to anyone not completely brainwashed and that is that any CO2 from the ocean or the arctic is not coming directly from Fossil fuels
Now, once you realize this obvious factor, we might then might actually discuss things.
Flame » in reply to re: You're Confused
re: You're Confused
The whole thread (48 posts)
- No to AGW thread moved to flame, sorry (n/t)
- On modelling...
- Why?
- Completely unjustified.... (n/t)
- Maybe if you learn to debate in a more civil tone. (n/t)
- LOL
- There was and is no 'debate'.
- Thank you for sharing your dogma.
- re: There was and is no 'debate'.
- Anyone that takes 'S' seriously should do a little research on his 'source'...The very fact that this is the best you can come up with proves my point....
- A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts
- nice quote from the endicrinologist you have there
- Maybe if you learn to debate in a more civil tone. (n/t)
