your position is inherently dishonest. thats why you are always defending yourself against claims that people are speaking for you. because you refuse to admit to the specifics of your own positions. you are intentionally vague because the logical extensions of your opinions are indefensible. this is is you avoiding the question, then chastising me for putting words in your mouth.
Bullchit. I speak very clearly and I address all relevant comments. I am not obligated to start a political campaign to burn artichokes instead of oil just because you'd like to argue against it. :insane: That's not a defense, it's a warning, podnuh. More nonsense. I have backed up my positions specifically with science and scientific citations. You have ever once attempted to do so. You just make up shallow objections and attempt to invent positions for me. I'm never going to let that happen. I'm cleverer than you are martin, you must accept this. You doofus, the "logical extentions of my positions" exist only in your imagination.
then perhaps you dont agree with the science. the science says we damn well better change. That's not a defense, it's a warning, podnuh. i know, you are too illogical to see what the science means, if true.
No it doesn't. Science tells what can be known about a thing. Society proposes solutions to societal problems. Politicians decide what national solutions they will support. I can discern and differentiate these phenomenon. You can't even perceive them. You know better. So make a case, then. Use science to "logically" "see what the science means". I can't wait. I will not be merciful.
After concentrating on football for a few weeks I have forgotten how enjoyable it is to read this forum. Fantastic!
the tragedy hereis that you think you can, but you cannot. that is why instead of answering my question earlier about why this issue crops in FSA while other scientific issues do not, you insulted me (which i enjoy) instead of answering.
It's a question without an answer and completely off topic. It is without scientific basis and nobody here understands or cares what you are trying to say. It has no relevance to global warming.
To be blunt... because it's a minute portion of the total mass of the atmosphere. Once again. BFD. A 35% increase of a small number is... a small number. Here's an illustration of just how "much" the concentration of CO2 has changed in terms of the total atmosphere. The red line shows the total change of CO2 in our atmosphere since 1958 at full-scale of the total atmosphere... Can't even see it. Let's magnify it by 10x and only show 1/10 of the atmosphere... Nope. Still can't see it. Let's magnify it ten times more (100x) to show 1/100th of the atmosphere... At least we can see the line. But still can't see the increase. Let's magnify it ten times more (1000x) to show 1/1000th of the atmosphere... How much of the total GHG present in our atmosphere are human contributed. It's the blue slice... IOW damn near none.
