Absolute rubbish again. Few things that not you nor anyone else can argue against are;

C02 is a greendhouse gas. That knowledge has been around for over 150 years.
C02 is inextricably linked to temperature throughout the climate record. Periods of high temperature have high concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere.
Humans through their use of fossil fuels and deforestation have had a significant impact on the increase of C02 in our atmosphere.
This has led to a warming forcing on temperatures in the lower atmosphere.

Are there many other factors which affect climate? Yes.
Do these mean that mankind is not affecting the climate through increasing the concentrations of C02 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. No.

There is absolutely nothing to refute anything I've written above. Nothing whatsoever. The science of AGW was around long, long before it ever became a political issue. Long, long before there was any organised conservation movement worldwide. And long, long before conspiracy nuts had access to the internet.

Again I would really love for you to show us links to some of the websites you get your information from. It would be an absolute laugh for the rest of us to see where you get all your crazy crap. You're certainly not intelligent enough to have come up with any of this yourself. So come on show us the nutty right wing extremist sites you get this tripe from.

Wrong, lies and mis information
Co2 is a common gas, and allways increases after periods of global warming caused by the sun becuase the ice melt frees up CO2..this is fact. There are multiple recordings in the historical records of warmer periods on earth than today...includeing the 13th century and the 9th century...evidence supported by seashells, tree rings...ocean mud cores.. the list go on and on. Cows produce more C02 than man does...again. fact...it's been measured they know exactly how much enters earths atmosphere and how much comes from us..less than a % from all human activity combined.

You have allready lost your arguement through calling me names and claiming I'm ignorant..name calling is the last line of defense in an debate. I gave you the evidence and the sites you can find them at. There is no human induced global warming and never was. Humans can effect micro climate..but they have no way of effecting macro climate. Don't make us regular folk, who apparently have far more commen sense, laugh in your general direction.

Really, I've seen Star Trek shows with better science than AGW.

[quote=Ryzorian;882071 Cows produce more C02 than man does....[/QUOTE]

:eek:
stupidity, mh! got to love it.

the gas they produce by farting is called methane which is 33times more dangerous to ozone than co2.
but our little genius probably knew that, right?

Again all I can say is absolute rubbish. I really, really want to see where you source your 'science' from. Conspiracies are Us website? You haven't given me any links to your version of 'sceince' at all. If you did I did not see them. Cows produce more C02 than humans? Absolutely laughable.
My assertions are backed by the best scientific minds on the planet working in the field of climate science. Where are you getting your information from?

I do wonder why when you obviously know that the earths climate is sensitive and has changed dramaticaly throughout it's history that you can't see that this is excellent evidence that changes we make to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affect our climate?
Your statement that C02 is a common gas means absolutely nothing. It is a 'greenhouse' gas. Do you even know what that means?

(In an official voice) This is a memorial thread gentlemen, not a high school debate room

Venus has massive amounts of Co2, from volcanos...mean tempature on Venus surface is 900 dagrees...that's a massive greenhouse effect.

Cows also produce co2, not just methane, or perhaps you missed that part of class......so do termites, also more than humans...Volcanoes produce more than humans...the ocean produces massive amounts of co2..Specially after dramatic ice melts..wich we had recently when a whole ice shelf melted..due to a volcanic vent underneath it wich caused it to melt. It's shelf is back by the way, 13% thicker than it was...ooooooooo amazeing.

Guess what? That's awsome..plants love Co2..so more co2 means bigger, lusher plants. Plants take out CO2 and produce O2, Wow..who knew?

China produces more Co2 than the US, you going to tell them to stop? Ha, that's to make me laugh. I am going to live how I want to, you can live how you want to.

By the way, I haven't seen any of your links either, and don't give me the UN reports..of wich there are 4..those use computer models built by idiots with an axe to grind. They don't include variables like solar radiation from sunspots, la nina, El neno, or cloud cover.

Venus is also almost 50 million km closer to the sun than we are... assuming we want full exposure in our fact-finding.

This is only partially correct. C02 is a greenhouse gas only at a certain concentration. There is a saturation point that once reached, will not contain more heat.

Moreover, the past ties between C02 and temperature increase was inverse to the situation today, C02 increased FOLLOWING temperature increaese, it was not the cause, it was the effect. Am I not right? Please keep your facts accurate.

Cows, termites and volcanoes do not produce more C02 than humans. Are you only talking about human respiration? Are you not including any of the other contributions like burning fossil fuels, deforestation and other land disturbance?

Here is a media article that keeps things in nice laymen terms so that even you may understand. If you really want links to scientific papers I'm happy to supply them but I really doubt you would read them or could understand them.

Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Wiki also gives a reasonable overview of C02 in our atmosphere

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UN reports are just a summary of all the current science. I am not surprised that a religious extremist like yourself denies the mainstream science. If you believe in mythical beings in the sky then you'll believe anything. You claim to have an environmental science background but where did you study? Some whacky religious institution on the internet that'll give you a degree if you just pay enough? Because you show an astonishing lack of understanding of how our climate works.

If there is a saturation point of C02 then it appears that we have not yet reached that point. So increasing it's concentrations will have a positive feedback on tropospheric temperatures.
The following two papers make that clear from both satellite and terrestrial observations.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
http://www.eumetsat.int/home/main/pu..._harries_v.pdf

Yes in the historical record rises in C02 usually follow rises initially in temperatures. It's pretty clear though that the two are linked. For the most part periods of higher temperatures also had periods of higher C02 concentrations. So what happens when humans upset the normal balance by rapidly increasing the C02 concentrations over a relatively short period?

For anyone on here wanting to look at some real science and look at scientific discussion that debunks most of the myths that people like Sangetsu and Ryzorian peadle here I would suggest downloading the following

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

The guy who wrote this is John Cook, an Australian solar physicist who has been awarded the Eureka Prize, the most prestigious award in Australian science.