I’m not denying “evidence,” I am disagreeing with a conclusion. Do you see the difference? As for couching it in a religious argument, puh-leeze. Global Warming is a religion. Cereal.

As for producing evidence to back up my claims – I leave that as an exercise to the readers.

There are only a few possibilities with you. Either you haven't bothered to read up, you can't understand the theory, your brain is completely shut to scientific evidence, or you're being paid to shill. There's no other explanation.

There are other possibilities, I will name one: after reviewing the evidence, and listening to the detractors; watching the behaviours and actions of government and corporate bodies in their reaction to Global Warming, and in their reaction to contrarian arguments and evidence, I conclude as I have said. Actions speak louder than words. They always have, they always will.

You don’t have to track down my anecdote – you can read the article I posted. You should watch the video. Calling it a “wingnut” video because it disagrees with you is typical of the GW Religion. You have used the term “wingnut” several times against me, something I find amusing. Calling names is childish. Typical of Liberals – “Everybody must think like I do, or they are crazy. “

You know, if you, or these “Global Warming” lemmings, are so friggin’ concerned about the Human Race, why don’t you focus on the real threats, like environmental toxins; Monsanto, genetically modified foods, and the privatization of water and seed. (Not to mention ManBearPig). The Cancer rate in the U.S. is now 30% - one in three people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and the numbers are still climbing. My mother’s oncologist, a well-respected teacher and practitioner for several years, even admitted under his breath one day that environmental toxins are the number one threat to human health, that it’s fundemental. But you want to mobilize Mankind to save Miami from going underwater?

We have survived Ice Ages. We have migrated to, and populated, the Arabian Peninsula, the Arctic Circle, islands in the South Pacific, the Plains of the American Midwest, the mountaintops of the Andes, the jungles of the Congo, the deserts of Australia. And you think Mankind is in danger because we might get a little hot or a little cold over the next several hundred years? It’s fucking laughable.

Global warming is not a threat to mankind – it is a threat to the powerful and the elite, who have all their money tied up in coastal properties; who have all their money tied up in centralized power grids, food distribution networks, and tax collecting. They are the ones who will be destroyed by global warming – the human race will be just fine. Indeed, I can see it now – indigenous peoples from all over the world will start getting crazy, fat, puffy white men wandering into their villages, starving and scared, because they have no idea how to live on planet Earth. Maybe a global warming catastrophe will be a good thing – it will teach us that our system is unsustainable, that it makes no sense, that it is scientifically and logically fundementally flawed.

I see a red flag went off in your head when I mentioned how I would like to raise my kids to be able to live independently of their government. This should be a standard American dream, not a “crazy” or “wacko” idea. See, you have been conditioned to be a slave. Someone who wishes to live off the grid, to grow their own food, well their own water, and not be a corporate lackey, is now seen as susepct, as a loon, as some type of political radical. Beautiful logic, isn’t it, when freedom becomes suspect, and slavery is equated to normalcy?

Wise up. You are being used. The real threats to your health and your safety and your family are not what they tell you to be concerned about. They never have been, and they never will be. It is just another method they have to rape you of your wealth and your freedom.

I was thinking a couple of glass bottles, a vacuum pump, and an accurate scale would do the trick. What am I missing?

Have you checked the price of diffusion pumps and laboratory balances lately? You're talking thousands of dollars. And like I said, that approach would be tricky to do, even though it's not that difficult conceptually. It would still go over most people's heads though.

I've demonstrated carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas using a couple of calibrated thermometers and a gas-handling manifold customized for the purpose, but the university had already paid for those.

The demonstration could also be done with a modified time-of-flight mass spectrometer, but I don't happen to have one handy. It wouldn't convince anybody who is motivated to ignore the evidence, anyway.

I know I'm not going to convince Steele, it just gives me a bit of pleasure to point out what an idiot he is.

He's desperately trying to drag you off topic with red herrings. My good friend pwoxby has introduced four or five logical fallacies himself, including a couple of his own red herrings. We're dealing with determined assholes here, both of whom are out to muddy the facts and pervert the truth any way they can. Well-meaning professional scientists see it all the time. Their resort to outright dishonesties are often pretty staggering.

Ever watch Sesame Street? The Count is going to count up all of the problems with your logic.

I’m not denying “evidence,” I am disagreeing with a conclusion. Do you see the difference? As for couching it in a religious argument, puh-leeze. Global Warming is a religion. Cereal.

By calling 100 years of science a religion, you are implicitly denying millions of man-hours of research (i.e. - evidence), which comes to a conclusion you don't like. I'll agree that GW denial is a religion, but the theory of GW is no more a religion than aerospace engineering is a religion.

Here you are begging the question. You disagree with the conclusion because you disagree with the conclusion, but somehow this isn't denial. 1 logical fallacy, mwha ha ha!

As for producing evidence to back up my claims – I leave that as an exercise to the readers.

How convenient for you. This is special pleading. Scientists have to prove their assertions to you, but you don't have to prove anything. 2 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha!

after reviewing the evidence, and listening to the detractors; watching the behaviours and actions of government and corporate bodies in their reaction to Global Warming, and in their reaction to contrarian arguments and evidence, I conclude as I have said. Actions speak louder than words. They always have, they always will.

This is an appeal to authority. You ignore the science, and instead say that your experts are better than my experts (but don't bother to provide any evidence of same). 3 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha!

You don’t have to track down my anecdote – you can read the article I posted. You should watch the video. Calling it a “wingnut” video because it disagrees with you is typical of the GW Religion.

Nah, I have 100 years of science on my side, and millions of hours of research. I don't need to debunk your video or your anecdotal evidence. You have the burden of proof, not me.

You know, if you, or these “Global Warming” lemmings, are so friggin’ concerned about the Human Race, why don’t you focus on the real threats, like environmental toxins; Monsanto, genetically modified foods, and the privatization of water and seed. (Not to mention ManBearPig).

This is both a red herring and a false dichotomy. It can be true that both GW and poisoning of the commons are a threat to mankind, but you set up an illogical dilemma, as if it's one or the other. That counts as two, so 5 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha!

But you want to mobilize Mankind to save Miami from going underwater?

As a matter of fact, I do, but that's not the only threat. Read up on the Permian Extinction, and also the arctic permafrost. How well do you breathe hydrogen sulphide, or methane?

We have survived Ice Ages. We have migrated to, and populated, the Arabian Peninsula, the Arctic Circle, islands in the South Pacific, the Plains of the American Midwest, the mountaintops of the Andes, the jungles of the Congo, the deserts of Australia. And you think Mankind is in danger because we might get a little hot or a little cold over the next several hundred years? It’s fucking laughable.

This is a red herring. The fact that mankind has survived hardship does nothing to prove your assertion that GW is not a threat. 6 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha! (uh-oh, the Count doesn't know how to count much higher!)

Global warming is not a threat to mankind – it is a threat to the powerful and the elite, who have all their money tied up in coastal properties;

False dichotomy. Begging the question. GW can be a threat to mankind, and a threat to the elite. Plus, you've offered no evidence to prove your assertion, you're just asserting it. 8 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha!

I see a red flag went off in your head when I mentioned how I would like to raise my kids to be able to live independently of their government. This should be a standard American dream, not a “crazy” or “wacko” idea. See, you have been conditioned to be a slave. Someone who wishes to live off the grid, to grow their own food, well their own water, and not be a corporate lackey, is now seen as susepct, as a loon, as some type of political radical.

Actually, since you asked my opinion, the idea has a rustic charm that appeals to me. I just don't think that you are capable of doing it.

Beautiful logic, isn’t it

Not really, says the Count.

Wise up. You are being used. The real threats to your health and your safety and your family are not what they tell you to be concerned about. They never have been, and they never will be. It is just another method they have to rape you of your wealth and your freedom.

Appeal to emotion. 9 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha.

I can do this all day. Pony up some real scientific evidence, or just admit you're a big gasbag.