orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- Thread starter
- #601
huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?You are reading way to much into what I said.Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.
You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?