When she cannot refute your argument Cblagh will then resort to attacking you or doing pop psychology on you. Or she will just ignore your questions period where you have to ask again and again. Very similar to people of dogma.

I have. Unfortunately she is conned by the Global Warming/Climate Change scare. Its kind of like talking to someone who is very religious no matter what you say or present they continue on with an childish argument.

I WILL live long and prosper, thank you! Please do the same.

When you have the answers to those questions I asked you, please feel free to come back to my profile. I'll be here.

You might want to help Fatty out with her denialism, too. The pre-quaternary/quaternary sensitivity conflict is actually probably the strongest argument you guys have... still completely wrong-headed, of course, but we didn't quite get to the point where we could tease out why. You might want to let her know about it, because it was way easier to get her to contradict herself than it was with you.

Drop the plant evolution nonsense though... magic plants intelligently controlling the global climate is just silly... ;p

The character limit is precisely the same on everyone's profile (under the old system, anyway). What'll get you is not posting in the correct order. You have to post to the remote page first and then your own, otherwise it'll see multiple posts and think you're spamming... it's a pretty sophisticated design, actually.

I doubt that all plants stop growing at less than 150PPM of CO2, but what does this have to do with the effect atmospheric carbon has on surface temperature? Are you sure I'm ignoring your questions, or is it the other way around?

Plants are driving cars and building coal plants? No, Seymour, humans are the ones who are adding extra global warming gases to our atmosphere, not plants...

Something is lacking when there is 0 of it. Your argument lacks facts. There are 0 facts to support your argument. See how that works?

Why would you need to play semantic games if you were basing your conclusion on your facts instead of the other way around?

5 th time and you are avoiding my questions anyway

Wow, it's the third time you've had difficulty posting your response to my profile! As I told you before, if you don't say something to my face, I'm not going to be able to hear it... or did you want to give the impression you'd responded without actually responding?

o_O

I've found denialists frequently attempt to move a conversation into a forum they can censor, in order to delete their embarrassing and contradictory comments... as if this would somehow be a better course of action than simply admitting they were mistaken...

You wouldn't be attempting that, would you?

CBlargh said, "Great! Plants have trouble growing at lower than 150 PPM of CO2."

This is incorrect. all plants stop growing at 150 ppm. which means they cannot reproduce or germinate new sprouts and they will die.
At 230 ppm their growth is noticeably stunned. This is very easy to follow the logic which everything else I said will fall into place.
If you look at the charts I pointed out before CO2 for the earth in the past few hundred million years has been at the least +1500 ppm. and you can see a very large drop for the last 100 million years. Plants are adapting creating more CO2 for themselves and our atmosphere. This is natures way of generating CO2.

Now your point you made:
said, "An atmosphere lacking in CO2 has 0 PPM of CO2"

if this isn't correct at what point in your opinion is the atmosphere starting to lack in CO2?

Great! Plants have trouble growing at lower than 150 PPM of CO2. Now that you've got that non-sequitur off your chest, let's finish our talk about your global warming denialism.

Why would you think 400 additional PPM of CO2 would only result in 0.6C of warming when over the last million years, every additional 10 PPM of CO2 results in 1C of warming? How did you arrive at the 0.6C figure instead of the more reasonable 40C figure?

You said any warming will take place slowly. How much warming should humans expect with the CO2 already in the atmosphere, and how quickly might it happen? How do you know?

What is earth's "normal" average temperature and if it makes the places where humans live uninhabitable, why would you call it "normal"? Are you the earth?

Yes, lacking means zero. If a glass lacks water, it has 0 ml of water. If a car lacks a steering wheel, it has 0 steering wheels...

... if a skull lacks a brain, it has 0 brains... get it?

CBlargh: your answer is close enough i guess. All plants stop growing at 150 ppm and most plants growth is stunned at 230 ppm which is between 100 to 150 ppm less then we are at.




Now your point you made:
said, "An atmosphere lacking in CO2 has 0 PPM of CO2"

Do you still believe this is correct? Remember i suggest looking at the CO2 readings for the past few hundred million years before you answer.

I am not making any correlation between CO2 and temperature.

180 PPM, Mantra Girl! I shall repeat it until you hear me! Ommmm, shanti shanti...

If you don't think 180 PPM is the lowest CO2 concentration in which most land plants can survive, what do you think the lowest concentration is?

...and what does this have to do with the effect atmospheric carbon has on planetary surface temperature or whether or not humans should be concerned about a future world where the places they live are not habitable?