You think opposition to the CO2 scare is all political? It’s not. You have been lied to.
This is a true statement.
Of course I do. No knowledge is so absolute that it cannot be replaced with new information. Science is a never ending search for the truth and it is never up for a vote.
You’re the one that has constantly demonstrated no knowledge of how science works throughout most of this thread.
It’s not that I’m going with the majority of the scientists. It’s that I’m going with the majority of the evidence. There’s a huge difference.
No, it’s not political. It’s deciding to go with what people more knowledgeable than I say.
Your choice to go with the minority is purely political. You wouldn’t choose the minority position if it conflicted with your politics.
I never said it was all politics. I’m sure there are some questions about the science that make you feel justified.
You wouldn’t recognize knowledge if you saw it. Your entire persona here has been to parrot what someone told you to believe.
That’s your prerogative, but it only takes one piece of evidence to outweigh the predominance of evidence.
No … you are going with what some people more knowledgeable than you say. So am I.
Wait . . . what . . .
Evidence that something causes regular heating and cooling of the plant (even before man came along) isn’t evidence of SOMETHING happening?
The Universe revolves around the sun . . . . .
The Earth is Flat . . . . .
No life sustaining plantes exist anywhere else in the Universe . . . .
All things that were said using “everything we currently know”.
Not really, no.
Maybe. It’s definitely not evidence of giant rocks flying by the Earth.
Yes, but my group is larger than your group. 
And we’ve developed peer review science which has done an outstanding job of sorting thing out since.
And it should be noted, some people here still believe the universe revolves around the sun.
I know real science, which you’ve proved is more than you.
You of course completely dodged the question. They are still orbiting on periods as long as and much longer than the proposed 100,000 years.
You were wrong from the start in even attempting to apply Keppler’s laws to extra solar bodies.
I’ll go with the dictionary rather than yourself when it comes to what is or isn’t proper terminology.
You definitely have lost track.
What I’ve stated repeatedly is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate experimentally that X increase in CO2 will cause Y increase in temperatures where CO2 remains a trace gas. Only at concentrations where it would be toxic to animal life has it ever been demonstrated that CO2 can have such an effect.
As I also pointed out the chemical properties of CO2 limit how much heat it can trap relative to it’s concentration.
