White House Global Warming Authority - A Novelist?

[jfuh]

1) The question that's been before you has been why do you think excursions from today's mean bother you?

:liar How's that nose growing?
I think my arguments are very representative on my stance. Just incase you have difficulty reading though.
YES I'M BOTHERED BY PRESENT DAY ACCELERATION IN TEMPERATURE MEANS FROM HISTORIC TRENDS

2) You've yet to answer that simple question.

:liar
I've answered your simple question more then once now.

3) You are not in a position to cry about ad hominem attacks.

Why the continuous variance liar?

Answer this question:
Are you ever going to actually answer the other question or are you getting an aerobic workout?

What kind of question is this? interesting how you can no longer make any scientific arguments against me and must result to continuous ad hominem attacks.

 

[RightinNYC]

It would appear you believe that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Would that be correct?

So then your problem appears that you do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Correct?

I don't know how I can make myself more clear on this. I'm not saying that it's not a greenhouse gas. I'm not saying there isn't a "greenhouse effect." I'm saying that there's absolutely no proof that it has an actual impact.

And the fluxuations between 1950-70 are very easy to explain. They're fluxuations. The average global temperature does it all the time. Unfortunately, the temperature does not neatly increase every year because there are constant variables playing out. This graph shows what I'm talking about.

This is getting amusing. So, things fluctuate all the time. We should just disregard that 40 years of fluctuation because it goes against your theory. But when it comes to the past 20 years, which is the only period that shows any marked increase, that's ROCK SOLID evidence. That couldn't be a fluctuation, could it? No, because that would ruin any and all argument for global warming. You don't see the incredible logical difficulty in saying "Well, that 40 years is just a fluctuation, but this 20 years CONCLUSIVELY proves that the entire world is changing"?

If you'll notice, there are both positive and negative deviations from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s. These deviation differences are due to natural cycles in the atmosphere. If you'll notice, there have been large deviations in both the positive and negative side. That's just how the atmosphere works. We're not talking about ten degrees though. It's a .2 degree difference. However the AVERAGE trend has been an increase in global temperature. It is absolutely not deniable. Not a single credible source exists that says otherwise.

You're right. Temperature is increasing right now. Nobody's disagreeing with that. But here's the thing: It's done that before. Over and over and over, all without human influence. Did you see those numerous graphs I posted before that proved that? Can you explain them?

Who has the authority? I use to bitch about the number of science classes CU required. Now I'm beginning to think NYU needs to require a little more.

I'm not saying I have the authority to say something conclusively. All I can do is look at the actual evidence and decide for myself. And there's nothing to support your claim.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

:liar How's that nose growing?
I think my arguments are very representative on my stance. Just incase you have difficulty reading though.
YES I'M BOTHERED BY PRESENT DAY ACCELERATION IN TEMPERATURE MEANS FROM HISTORIC TRENDS

:liar
I've answered your simple question more then once now.

The original question was:

"Why is it assumed that today's climate is at the optimal temperature?"

One can assume that your statement that you answered the question means you typed it and posted it on this board, not that you may have spoken it aloud.

Please indicate which posts of yours address the specific question and explain how they provide an answer.

I haven't wasted any time making any scientific arguments against you since you don't seem able to answer simple qualitative questions. Discussing the science is something I reserve for adults.

 

[jfuh]

You're being obtuse. The evidence brought up clearly shows that the "hockey stick" is a figment of manipulated data. First, they left out a warming period and a mini ice age, which would make the stick look more like a sine graph. Second, the program they used was designed to portray things as hockey sticks. Third, the data itself is in question and not being released.

I draw your attention from this quote of the article I posted:

"Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much. There is such a strong difference between pre-industrial behaviour and the growth during the last 100 years or so," -- Joyce Penner (Aksel Wiin-Nielsen Collegiate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences)
A Professor whom received her PhD in mathematics. I believe she would be much more knowledgeable then you or anyone else on this site with regards to data entry.

And stop throwing strawmen up, I'm not saying that we as humans don't contribute to greenhouse gases. I'm saying that there's no evidence that the impact is more than negligible.

That's not what a straw man fallacy is.

 

[RightinNYC]

Here are seven facts you should know about global warming.

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry. Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicsts, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.

The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are dramatically better than the 2,600 "scientists" who have signed a competing petition calling for immediate action to counter global warming. More than 90 percent of that petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue. The entire list included just one climatologist.(4)

2. The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.

Global warming alarmists point to surface-based temperature measurements showing 1997 was the warmest year on record. But U.S. government satellites and weather balloons rank 1997 as the seventh coolest year since satellite measurements began in 1978. Which record is more reliable?

Surface-based temperature records are too few in number and too unevenly spaced to generate accurate global temperature maps. Only 30 percent of the world's surface is land, so land-based temperature stations measure less than one-third of the Earth's climate. Urban stations, which are influenced by city heat anomalies,(6) are over-represented; deserts, mountains, and forests are under-represented.

The global temperature record produced from satellite data has none of the problems faced by surface-based thermometers. Orbiting satellites cover 99 percent of the Earth's surface, not less than a third, and measure a layer of the troposphere that is above the effects of urban heat islands.

Satellite measurements are accurate to within 0.001 C. Because new satellites are launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) before old ones are retired, overlapping data sets are created, ensuring that the new satellites are calibrated correctly.

Satellite data agree almost exactly with those recorded by weather balloons, even though the latter use an entirely different technology. While the satellite record extends back only to 1979, weather balloon data go back 38 years to 1960. As shown below, neither set of data shows a warming trend since 1979.

Read the other 5 reasons at the link...

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/ieguide.htm

 

[RightinNYC]

I draw your attention from this quote of the article I posted:
"Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much. There is such a strong difference between pre-industrial behaviour and the growth during the last 100 years or so," -- Joyce Penner (Aksel Wiin-Nielsen Collegiate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences)
A Professor whom received her PhD in mathematics. I believe she would be much more knowledgeable then you or anyone else on this site with regards to data entry.

And I'll in turn draw your attention to this quote from the same article:

This convention favoured a hockey stick shape for the final temperature record, say Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in Geophysical Research Letters.

Consequently, claims Dr McKitrick, of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, the inclusion of this data set could "flip" the entire analysis.

"Our work is very significant for understanding the way that particular study got the conclusions it did," Dr McKitrick explained.

"What we've been able to show is that their method looks through the data for hockey stick shapes and then promotes those to the dominant pattern," he told the BBC News website.

Looks like we each have a Dr who agrees with us. So unless you want to have a ******* contest over whose Dr has a bigger dick, why dont you argue the case on the merits?

That's not what a straw man fallacy is.

Why is it that you will deny the contribution of green house gases from your tailpipe?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Uh, that's exactly what a strawman is. I made one argument. You ignored it, and then asked me why I was denying that greenhouse gases come from a tailpipe. If you're going to try to condescend to me, you should make sure you're at a higher point first.

 

[jfuh]

Here are seven facts you should know about global warming.

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry. Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicsts, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.


The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are dramatically better than the 2,600 "scientists" who have signed a competing petition calling for immediate action to counter global warming. More than 90 percent of that petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue. The entire list included just one climatologist.(4)

This is called the fallacy of BANDWAGONING. It also shows you just haven't seen the other petitions.
As for the petition where you claimed 2,600 "scientists". Just what petition was that? Souce?

2. The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.

Global warming alarmists point to surface-based temperature measurements showing 1997 was the warmest year on record. But U.S. government satellites and weather balloons rank 1997 as the seventh coolest year since satellite measurements began in 1978. Which record is more reliable?

Surface-based temperature records are too few in number and too unevenly spaced to generate accurate global temperature maps. Only 30 percent of the world's surface is land, so land-based temperature stations measure less than one-third of the Earth's climate. Urban stations, which are influenced by city heat anomalies,(6) are over-represented; deserts, mountains, and forests are under-represented.

The global temperature record produced from satellite data has none of the problems faced by surface-based thermometers. Orbiting satellites cover 99 percent of the Earth's surface, not less than a third, and measure a layer of the troposphere that is above the effects of urban heat islands.

Satellite measurements are accurate to within 0.001 C. Because new satellites are launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) before old ones are retired, overlapping data sets are created, ensuring that the new satellites are calibrated correctly.

Satellite data agree almost exactly with those recorded by weather balloons, even though the latter use an entirely different technology. While the satellite record extends back only to 1979, weather balloon data go back 38 years to 1960. As shown below, neither set of data shows a warming trend since 1979.

Read the other 5 reasons at the link...

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/ieguide.htm

I'll supply one simple link to counter your copy and pastes:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'll supply one simple link to counter your copy and pastes:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

So, which is the better debating technique, to "copy and paste", thereby parsing the information to illustrate the point, or simply posting a link and making the reader waste time trying to figure out what is meant?

Gotta wonder why some denigrate "copy and pasting". Glue tastes good...

BTW, you ever going to answer my question, or are you engaging that time honored debating technique called "hide, and maybe he'll go away"?

 

[RightinNYC]

This is called the fallacy of BANDWAGONING. It also shows you just haven't seen the other petitions.
As for the petition where you claimed 2,600 "scientists". Just what petition was that? Souce?

The point of posting that link was to do ONE thing: Refute the bullshit claim that "no respectable scientist" doesn't believe in global warming. Try 17,000 of them. And I have seen the petition, thanks chief.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I'll supply one simple link to counter your copy and pastes:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Wow, congratulations, you can link to a root page that has no data, evidence, or anything else on it. Now how about you counter the other data and evidence I've provided?

 

[jfuh]

So, which is the better debating technique, to "copy and paste", thereby parsing the information to illustrate the point, or simply posting a link and making the reader waste time trying to figure out what is meant?

Gotta wonder why some denigrate "copy and pasting". Glue tastes good...

BTW, you ever going to answer my question, or are you engaging that time honored debating technique called "hide, and maybe he'll go away"?

Wow, you're a pathological liar aren't you. I answered your question already, if you go back and read post #51.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Wow, you're a pathological liar aren't you. I answered your question already, if you go back and read.

Perhaps you're just not used to answering a question directly. Here, I'll help you. Say "global warming is bad because _______."

Then just fill in the blanks using your own words.

And no, if you had answered the question already, I'd have seen it and responded to it. Not being a rock, I'm fully aware that if you actually had answered the question you'd refer me to the post were you answered it. Since you can't direct me to a post that doesn't exist, you're forced to hide behind bluster.

This is why I don't bother to play duelling press releases with people like you. You don't know why you hold your own position so you can't defend it yourself, so you have to hide behind authority figures. Is there any reason to waste emotion on a debate when you can't explain why it excites you? All that chasing references does is provide camoflage for your most basic of ignorance. You can't explain why you care.

 

[jfuh]

The point of posting that link was to do ONE thing: Refute the bullshit claim that "no respectable scientist" doesn't believe in global warming. Try 17,000 of them. And I have seen the petition, thanks chief.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I asked for the 2600 "scientist" petition. I never made claim to "no respectable Scientist", you're confusing me with someone else.

Wow, congratulations, you can link to a root page that has no data, evidence, or anything else on it. Now how about you counter the other data and evidence I've provided?

I have made the critical error of overestimating you. Sorry, I should've known better then to assume you would know how to navigate a website.
If you actually "surfed" around you would find a plethora of information.
Being that overly copying and pasting on DP is against forum rules a simple link that you can yourself find the "relevent" information is all that is required.
So if you would actually read the website you will find all your evidence.
Here I'll make one part simple for you. US greenhouse gas emmision inventory

The "data and evidence" you provided are easily countered by the very basis of thier source. I provide you with a credible source - EPA
You provide me with what again? heartland.org?
You claim human contribution to global warming is false thus
a) Burden of proof is on you
Yet in the process of proving, you've made the fallacies of
b) begging the question, bandwagoning, and biased sample.

 

[jfuh]

Perhaps you're just not used to answering a question directly. Here, I'll help you. Say "global warming is bad because _______."

Ok liar that never asked this question, but here's the answer:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html
Now read.

Then just fill in the blanks using your own words.

And no, if you had answered the question already, I'd have seen it and responded to it. Not being a rock, I'm fully aware that if you actually had answered the question you'd refer me to the post were you answered it. Since you can't direct me to a post that doesn't exist, you're forced to hide behind bluster.

This is why I don't bother to play duelling press releases with people like you. You don't know why you hold your own position so you can't defend it yourself, so you have to hide behind authority figures. Is there any reason to waste emotion on a debate when you can't explain why it excites you? All that chasing references does is provide camoflage for your most basic of ignorance. You can't explain why you care.

Other then spin and lie, can you ever actually provide some useful information?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ok liar that never asked this question, but here's the answer:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html
Now read.


Other then spin and lie, can you ever actually provide some useful information?

I'm providing scads of useful information.

You don't know why this global warming might be bad.

You can't answer questions in your own words.

You're not willing to actually discuss the real issues, but wish instead to hide behind the abilities of other people.

===

Know why what I ask of you is important? Because Chicken Little is running around screaming about the sky and he doesn't realize that no one cares until it can be shown how it will impact them personally.

You can't demonstrate how global warming is bad, so why should we take you or any of the other people wetting their pants on this issue seriously?

 

[jfuh]

I'm providing scads of useful information.

You don't know why this global warming might be bad.

You can't answer questions in your own words.

You're not willing to actually discuss the real issues, but wish instead to hide behind the abilities of other people.

===

Know why what I ask of you is important? Because Chicken Little is running around screaming about the sky and he doesn't realize that no one cares until it can be shown how it will impact them personally.

You can't demonstrate how global warming is bad, so why should we take you or any of the other people wetting their pants on this issue seriously?

Keep up the bullshit and lies.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't know how I can make myself more clear on this. I'm not saying that it's not a greenhouse gas. I'm not saying there isn't a "greenhouse effect." I'm saying that there's absolutely no proof that it has an actual impact."

No need to get testy. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe before I start showing how you are wrong. So you don't think greenhouse gases have an effect?

This is getting amusing. So, things fluctuate all the time. We should just disregard that 40 years of fluctuation because it goes against your theory. But when it comes to the past 20 years, which is the only period that shows any marked increase, that's ROCK SOLID evidence. That couldn't be a fluctuation, could it? No, because that would ruin any and all argument for global warming. You don't see the incredible logical difficulty in saying "Well, that 40 years is just a fluctuation, but this 20 years CONCLUSIVELY proves that the entire world is changing"?

Tell me about it. :roll: If you'll notice that before the 1940s there was also a negative deviation. However, the amount of negative deviation was steadily decreasing. The period from 1940-70 was when the deviation started to become increasingly more positive. There are fluxes during that time, where the deviations are both positive and negative. That is normal. The period after 1970 also has fluxes, it's just it's all still in the positive range, so you don't notice it.

You're right. Temperature is increasing right now. Nobody's disagreeing with that. But here's the thing: It's done that before. Over and over and over, all without human influence. Did you see those numerous graphs I posted before that proved that? Can you explain them?

You're right. Temperature has certainly changed before without human intervention. It has a lot to do with thresholds for CO2 in the atmosphere. Once it passes a certain point, it creates a positive feedback loop that causes higher and higher temperatures which causes more and more CO2 to be released. It stabilizes at a certain point and slowly begins to fall. No scientist debates that. However, we have pushed CO2 beyond the stabilization point. We haven't had this much in the atmosphere for 400,000 years. There are many point to debate. How much it will affect us. If it's worth doing anything about. If it's possible to do anything about it. The fact that CO2 causes global warming is not debatable. Or it is about as debatable as smoking and lung cancer. Which, by the way, your junk science guy also didn't believe. Glad you've thrown your support behind the big minds in science.

I'm not saying I have the authority to say something conclusively. All I can do is look at the actual evidence and decide for myself. And there's nothing to support your claim.

There is quite a bit to support my claim. Such as the entire scientific community. At CU, global warming is a REQUIRED part of the curriculum for environmental studies. There is no more debate in the scientific community. None.

 

[jfuh]

I don't know how I can make myself more clear on this. I'm not saying that it's not a greenhouse gas. I'm not saying there isn't a "greenhouse effect." I'm saying that there's absolutely no proof that it has an actual impact."

What is "it" ? greenhouse gases? CO2?

There is quite a bit to support my claim. Such as the entire scientific community. At CU, global warming is a REQUIRED part of the curriculum for environmental studies. There is no more debate in the scientific community. None.

Unless you are on the Cheny Inc. payroll.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Keep up the bullshit and lies.

You know, I should report this. But I won't.

Is there an organic reason why you're not able to explain your thoughts and feelings on why global warming is so bad in your eyes? Could be a tumor, ya know.

 

[jfuh]

You know, I should report this. But I won't.

Go ahead report it, I don't want to owe you anything. Yes you are lieing, and yes you are making bullshit remarks. I fail to see how any of what I wrote is against the forum rules.

Is there an organic reason why you're not able to explain your thoughts and feelings on why global warming is so bad in your eyes? Could be a tumor, ya know.

Organic reason? Vs inorganic I assume?

Lieing again? I already explained Akhbar, if you choose to ignore the facts fine, whatever rocks your boat.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Okay, so jfuh has announced that he won't explain why he feels that an increase in mean global temperature is unwelcome.

Any other chicken little care to explain why we should care about it?

 

[jfuh]

Okay, so jfuh has announced that he won't explain why he feels that an increase in mean global temperature is unwelcome.

Any other chicken little care to explain why we should care about it?

Pathological liar, I've explained already twice now.
Go back and read post #63, the link I posted is my explanation.
Now stop being such an ***.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Pathological liar, I've explained already twice now.
Go back and read post #63, the link I posted is my explanation.
Now stop being such an ***.

Your refusal to state why you feel global warming is worrisome indicates you don't have a grasp on the problem.

If you understood the problem, you'd be able to state, in plain English, what your concerns were, and you wouldn't have to post links where other people have done your thinking for you.

Also, by directing someone to read a document not authored by you, you're depending on the writing skills of those others to speak for you. You lose control of the discussion when you use the words of others, just as your repeated refusal to actually answer the question tells all that you're just a loser in general.

Besides which, I'm not wasting time doing your homework for you. If you can't express your concerns in your own words, you simply aren't competent to discuss the topic.

 

[RightinNYC]

I asked for the 2600 "scientist" petition. I never made claim to "no respectable Scientist", you're confusing me with someone else.

That's because I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Kelzie. And what does the 2600 scientists who say there WAS global warming have anything to do with the matter?

I have made the critical error of overestimating you. Sorry, I should've known better then to assume you would know how to navigate a website.
If you actually "surfed" around you would find a plethora of information.

Right. How's this for a legitimate debate tactic:

"I think that race relations in this country are at their best ever. Go here and surf around to find a plethora of information: www.google.com:lol:

Being that overly copying and pasting on DP is against forum rules a simple link that you can yourself find the "relevent" information is all that is required.

Copying and apsting articles in their entirety is illegal. Linking directly to a piece of evidence is not. There's a big difference.

So if you would actually read the website you will find all your evidence.
Here I'll make one part simple for you. US greenhouse gas emmision inventory

You seem to be incapable of addressing the issue at hand. For the fourth time now, that source has NOTHING TO DO with the topic. It doesn't make any claims about global warming, and it most certainly doesn't prove it.

The "data and evidence" you provided are easily countered by the very basis of thier source. I provide you with a credible source - EPA
You provide me with what again? heartland.org?

First off, did you GO to heartland? The page I posted has links citing studies throughout it. Since the beginning of this thread, I've posted probably 2 dozen graphs, charts, and links from various government and scientific sources. Neither you nor kelzie nor dana (who seems to have found this over his head) has addressed or refuted any of them.

You claim human contribution to global warming is false thus
a) Burden of proof is on you

Says who? You're claiming that its occurring. prove it to me.

Yet in the process of proving, you've made the fallacies of
b) begging the question, bandwagoning, and biased sample.

I'M committing fallacies? Take your list, add strawman, and apply it to yourself.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What I'm getting at, of course, is that there's a serious disconnect in the mindset of most people regarding "problems".

The argument basically goes like this:

L: "The Earth is getting warmer! The Earth is getting warmer! We have to do something!"

C: "The Earth isn't getting warmer! The Earth isn't getting warmer! We shouldn't do anything!"

And then they argue about the weather. However, what one should always do before finding a solution to a problem is to know what the problem is. So when Chicken Little runs up screaming "the Earth is getting warmer!", we shouldn't just reach to turn up the air conditioning. We should ask: "So? What's the problem?"

So indeed I do ask "what's the problem with a warmer planet?" No one answers that.

 

[RightinNYC]

No need to get testy. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe before I start showing how you are wrong. So you don't think greenhouse gases have an effect?

I don't think that there is any proof that human contributions to greenhouse gases have had or will have any significant effect on the worlds climate. I'd love to see you prove me wrong.

Tell me about it. :roll: If you'll notice that before the 1940s there was also a negative deviation. However, the amount of negative deviation was steadily decreasing. The period from 1940-70 was when the deviation started to become increasingly more positive. There are fluxes during that time, where the deviations are both positive and negative. That is normal. The period after 1970 also has fluxes, it's just it's all still in the positive range, so you don't notice it.

And this proves....? The environment has lots of up and down swings, as history has shown. Still nothing proving that we're causing this one or affecting it in any way.

You're right. Temperature has certainly changed before without human intervention. It has a lot to do with thresholds for CO2 in the atmosphere. Once it passes a certain point, it creates a positive feedback loop that causes higher and higher temperatures which causes more and more CO2 to be released. It stabilizes at a certain point and slowly begins to fall. No scientist debates that. However, we have pushed CO2 beyond the stabilization point. We haven't had this much in the atmosphere for 400,000 years. There are many point to debate. How much it will affect us. If it's worth doing anything about. If it's possible to do anything about it. The fact that CO2 causes global warming is not debatable. Or it is about as debatable as smoking and lung cancer. Which, by the way, your junk science guy also didn't believe. Glad you've thrown your support behind the big minds in science.

There is quite a bit to support my claim. Such as the entire scientific community. At CU, global warming is a REQUIRED part of the curriculum for environmental studies. There is no more debate in the scientific community. None.

Like you said, no need to get testy. I've taken an environmental science course as well. Doesn't mean I'm an authority on the matter. And how on earth can you claim "There is no more debate in the scientific community. None"???

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

OVER SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS signed this.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Why don't you write each one of those 17,000 PhD's, climatologists, and geologists, and tell them that the Environmental Studies department at CU thinks they're wrong.

No more debate. heh.