[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Come on Pooey? Do the math! .30X.04 An .0420 increase of the human contribution to Co2 which is something like .04% of the total 1% is insignificant and doesn't possibly counteract the major(natural) influences on climate?

Let's put this into perspective, we've seen 280PPM rise to 380PPM, something which normally takes thousands of years (not to mention this peak is the highest in the past 300k years at the very least). You're assuming that CO2 has minimal contribution to thermal retention, or the greenhouse effect. Therefore, you're playing the % game to make it appear as if you have the numbers on your side, when in fact, you don't.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another? Just pick up your dictionary and check the defition of certainty..then check the definition of estimates. Then answer the question does the term estimate =certainty?

When did I equate estimate to certainty? Where is that written or implied?

Quote by: xyzer It ought to become evident that we are being duped by the IFCC and climate alarmists about the signifigance of human contributions to global warming. Yes there is evidence that we have been in a warmer cycle the last quarter century but no there is no definitive evidence that humsn caused emissions are a major or even minor cause for it?

There is mounting evidence for human induced global warming, it remains the most likely explanation so until you can find something else that fits it better, that's what you'll have to accept. I don't want to hear any more flimsy anecdotes, if for example you think it's the sun's fault then find the evidence to support your assertions. If you can't then you've got no point and no case, just denial.