Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

You've shown nothing at all. You seem to be totally incapable of understanding scientific papers and are just repeating the same old lies and long debunked claims over and over.

Can you cite one, just one, paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that supports you claims that AGW is not a real effect?

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

Well yea, If your whole argument depends on bold claims your opponent knows are false. In a debate you can't really expect your opponent to just drop the issue.

How exactly do you know the medieval warm period was warmer then now?

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.

There is an almost complete identification with the ingroup(Watson, 1974)..... Socialization further reinforces out-group hostility as it is often rewarded within the in-group(Watson, 1974). In this group emotions spread quickly, as if contagious. The ingroup membership brings with it a feeling of superiority and security. A common goal focuses all of this energy, hence the irrationality and often aggression of such groups(McDougall, 1920).

Diane Kohl, examination of Nazis

Since I brought your name into this I will answer you this once:
What you have suggested is that anyone that opposes your position is a Nazi.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

Well yea, If your whole argument depends on bold claims your opponent knows are false. In a debate you can't really expect your opponent to just drop the issue.

How exactly do you know the medieval warm period was warmer then now?

And from you we get that _I_ am making bold claims while you have given us "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" while you have consistently denied any proof that your claims are false.

Making a fool of yourself doesn't exactly improve your position.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

You've shown nothing at all. You seem to be totally incapable of understanding scientific papers and are just repeating the same old lies and long debunked claims over and over.

Can you cite one, just one, paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that supports you claims that AGW is not a real effect?

I have no intentions of going over the evidence yet again. I think that at least 100 times is enough whether you do or not. GasGuzzler just totally destroyed your prior claim that when CO2 was stable so was the MGT. With your latest you are not in the litesong club and no longer worthy of even reading.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: You have never actually given any evidence to support your claims. Simply writing posts IN BOLD TYPE is not evidence!