No it doesn't. I know science isn't your forté, but each gas absorbs and emits infrared radiation (heat) in proportional amounts, so if there's 20% of CO2 in the atmosphere, 20% of the radiation emitted will be from CO2. That reasoning should be irrelevant, however, as page 7 demonstrates..

As for the graph, I have absolutely no idea where you got that data from, so I can't outright dismiss it as complete bullshit, but judging by the fact that it has water vapour up at around 95% (can't exactly tell due to the poor nature of presentation), I'm sceptical of it, to say the least..

Either way, you still haven't addressed the fact that even if both of your premises were correct (which modern science says they're not), your argument still wouldn't be true.

I know science isn't your forté but oh look what I had and didn't bother to cite in my last post http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html. I'm not very scientifically oriented but I'm pretty sure there's something in there about infrared absorption characteristics of various greenhouse gases. You might want to look at it.

Actually, deductively it would be valid. If twigs are pretty much useless in a war, and guns are the primary cause of casualties, giving out a relatively small amount of twigs would not be meaningful in any way. The difference is very slight and almost complete unnoticeable.

You might have been thinking of inductive reasoning, which is basically "It is getting hotter some places in the world. Therefore, the entire planet is heating up." Deductive reasoning is more like "Men are mortal. Lou Ferrigno is a man. Therefore, Lou Ferrigno is mortal." If the premises are true, the conclusion is true because it follows as a logical consequence. Just like "I have five fingers. I cut off two fingers. I now have three fingers." If I had five fingers, and I cut off two, I would then have three. If I had six fingers, or cut off three fingers, the conclusion would be false.

I don't know why I thought it seemed like you needed that explanation, but it was probably because most of what you said was illogical and contradictory to the other things you had said. Incidentally, the lack of causal relationship between greenhouse gas and climate change in FPE's argument does not invalidate the argument. If there were no relationship, then what he said would still be true because there would still be no meaningful change caused by man's contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is also worth noting that your arguments against P1 and P2 have pretty much nothing to do with either premise, as abundance does not affect importance.

As the following table shows, each of the greenhouse gases could potentially trap much more heat than they are currently doing, but there is a great deal of overlap between them. Adding more carbon dioxide when most of it isn't trapping much heat isn't going to make any meaningful difference to the overall state of things. The table is taken from the link in FPE's post, and I suggest you click the link and read its contents as well.



As you can see, the figures in this chart at the percentages shown (these could and probably did change of late, as it is from 1978; nevertheless the chart remains accurate in its premise) clearly indicate what FPE has been trying to explain to you: CO2 is pretty minor as far as things go in the troposphere.

Well guys Ima be intelligent bout this cause it's Intelligent Discussion and all so the real answer is that Al Gore proved global warming a looong time ago, duh, but now I think it hasn't been updated or needs a patch cause it's not working. It's HELLA COLD here and I wants some more of it.

Well i have traveled a bit and everywhere seems to be hotter. Some countries Ive visited were hot in the summer, where as in the past it has never gone above mild weather. So experience tells us global warming does exist right? Or is this caused by something else?

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

How do these numbers even add up? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I see ~95% water vapor and then the rest are all below 1%....

Solid scientific evidence has confirmed that THIS is the real reason for global warming...

Just to return back to this slightly:

What is your view on these Climatologists and reputable scientists that report and reach the conclusions over which we're arguing, FPE? Are they all part of a conspiracy, or are they all just generally bad scientists - with your knowledge of the science of the environment exceeding theirs?

For ease of argument, can you make the first part of your reply which of these views you maintain? You can copy and paste, or just reply with "Conspiracy" or "Bad Scientists".

When these "reputable scientists" stand to profit, then their opinion becomes biased and therefore much less credible.

It's all a big scam

I can point out that they are bad scientists without being knowledgeable about the environment or climate. Science is simply a method for obtaining information. If you adhere to it closely and acknowledge its limitations you are a good scientist and your findings will have a relatively small margin of error. If you adhere to it loosely and/or ignore its limitations you are a bad scientist and your findings will have an exceedingly high margin of error.

What is your opinion of the climatologists and reputable scientists that didn't claim catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was occurring? Are they all part of a conspiracy, or are they just generally bad scientists - with your knowledge of the science of the environment exceeding theirs?

Screaming at the top of your lungs that the science is settled and there is no room for debate doesn't make it true. Judging a scientist's reputability based upon whether he believes in anthropogenic global warming allows you to refer to anyone that disagrees with you as disreputable regardless of their past performance.

I like the evidence.

I have come to the belief that global warming is a fact.