because i praised people for posting stuff on topic, you know wash your hands of the debate. Thats really mature and i have know lost what little respect i had for you, goodbye and goodridance Sqrl.

Don't forget those horrible dry ice fog machines that people use for haloween and other things....

*GASP*...tHE hORROR!!!1 

I'm on the other side of the table from Sqrl on this issue, but he is very knowledgeable and deserves better than to have Wikipedia links thrown at him like that's all the answer he should need.

As for his "arrogance", IMO it's the fact that his calm yet devastating rebuttals made him look so good in comparison to his adversaries that gave rise to that accusation.

 I made mention of this on the first page but no one seemed to notice.

 Similarly, Mars is undergoing Global Warming.  Wonder how Al "I profit from Carbon Credits" Gore can spin that to be our fault as well?

On topic:

Nintendo never sent Greenpeace their purely voluntary survey data so Greenpeace seemingly made stuff up.

"Nintendo decided not to take part in the survey and were therefore 'ungraded' in the resulting report. Nintendo provides detailed information regarding our compliance to EU Directives via the Consumer Section of our website and therefore we felt it unnecessary to take part in the Greenpeace survey.

"Furthermore, we fully comply with all the necessary EU Directives on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances aimed at environmental protection and consumer health and safety. Furthermore, in order to ensure our products are safe for use by young children we also take into consideration the standards applicable to toys.”

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/nintendo-hits-back-at-greenpeace-report-370384

 He called you ignorant on the subject, which is not an insult as we all are ignorant on most things (as there are too many things to know about too many subjects for us not to be). Ignorance and stupidity are different things though many people do not understand the difference as people ignorant of a given subject often appear stupid to those more knowledgable on it, hence why people assume they are being called stupid and insulted when they are being called ignorant, which is a tautology and thus as instulting as calling you human (unless you are not, in which case my apologies).

If you feel that his perception of your ignorance is unjustified then why not display your knowledge of it by refuting his arguments instead of repeating your already discredited arguments?

I find it hilarious that you said these two things so close to one another. If your mind is closed about being changed the clearly you aren't interested in taking their argument seriously.

Copy and pasting a rant 3 times is no way to conduct a debate (:sarcasm: unless you didn't copy and paste but worded the same thing three times exactly the same way, including typos :/sarcasm:) and how can you say that global warning is a fact if your opinion being changed about it is never going to happen, this makes it a dogmatic belief of yours, not a carefully weighted position that balances towards it being fact due to the current data as you know it (i.e. an informed opinion).

Also, Wikipedia or any encyclopedia for that matter should not be cited as a source as it is a misuse of them. Encyclopedia are great starting point for researching things, but they are not the end point unless all you want/need is a shallow understanding of a given subject.

One last thing, given the way sqrl schooled you, having you calling for a draw is extremely reminiscent of the black knight doing so in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

If you were a Creationist instead of a Global Warmist you would make Youtube's VenomFangX proud.

Also, before you label me as an anthropogenic global warming denier, I am not, I think that our scientific understanding of the Earth's climate is too nascent for us to affirm either way and that the millions/billions spent to implement policies derived from it would be better spent on research bothto better understand the situation and to develop renewable fuel sources which would be useful now and necessary later regardless of whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not, but if it is you sure did a heck of a poor job demonstrating it.

@ Sqrl - You wanted a post by post critique.

Post 1 - Yes this has happend before, but the nature of climate change at the moment is unprecedented (if it isnt please let me know, as that would actually impress me) also recent climate change has been coinciding with human adoption of polluting technology and industry, this has had a direct impact on our planets climate. Yes it probably has been exagerated, but i dont think that this is enough to say its not happening at all.
Post 2 - Your point here is essentially that graphs can be manipulated to support either side, we all knew that already, still it proves nothing.
Post 3 - This is a poor argument, politics will allways play a part in any debate like this.
Post 4 - Natural temprature variance does happen i agree, but ive not heard of it happening inline with human causes pre-industrial revolution. as ive already said graphs can be manipulated.
Post 5 - if you want to talk numbers, you will allways lose this argumeent, infact this post is actually against other posts you made saying numbers were irrelevent.
Post 6 - If the truth is truly your goal, then why do you refuse to give any actuall hard evidence to support your argument, could be such evidence does not exist?
Post 7 - Scientists change their mind, again this could be said of your viewpoint as well, im am currently researching this myself and if i can find some specifics i will gladly post them for you.
Post 8 - Here you openly mock another user and cite only your prior posts as evidence.
Post 9 - Fair enough you responded to another users comment.
Post 10 - As ive already pointed out this article proves nothing.
Post 11 - Again you insult another users intelligence, i unlike PS360 am well aware of the differences between GW and AGW.
Post 12 - Fair comment.
Post 13 - Fair comment.
Post 14 -" You are free to believe whatever you like, I have no desire to convince every man woman and child, only those who are interested to learn the facts as I am. I again apologize if I came across as condescending, I shouldn't have allowed my frustration with you to influence my responses."

This implies that people who disagree with you are uneducated, which is both inflamitory and untrue.
Post 15 - Post 14 clearly implies you do think you are more intelligent than PS360.
Post 16 - Fair Comment.
Post 17 - Again i refer you to your 14th post.
Post 18 - Fair Comment.
Post 19 - Yes PS360 was childish, but you are not an entirely innocent party here, Post 14 agian.
Post 20 - Yes you have a better argument than PS360, but to win you need to disprove AGW.
Post 21 - You later threaten to leave the debate becaues i praised on topic posts, this proves you are a hippocrit.
Post 22 - Good, im glad you understand that, but why then did you continue to orely on that graph to debunk PS360?
Post 23 - Again as i said graphs can be manipulated by either side.
Post 24 - Ive already adressed this thread earlier in the debate.
Post 25 - NYT v Wikipedia, neither is perfect, i will concede that wikipedia is flawed, but as i said in a prior post, it has lots of reliable links.
Post 26 - I am doing that here
Post 27 - I am doing that here, threating to leave a debate does not make you a defacto winner.
Post 28 - What Personal attacks, What flamebait?

I am trying to be civil and open here, plaese read my points and debate properly, no more insults. I apologise if i have offended you, however you are not innocent here.

I'm not prepared to do a point-by-point analysis of all that but one thing in particular caught my eye:

Post 14 -" You are free to believe whatever you like, I have no desire to convince every man woman and child, only those who are interested to learn the facts as I am. I again apologize if I came across as condescending, I shouldn't have allowed my frustration with you to influence my responses."

This implies that people who disagree with you are uneducated, which is both inflamitory and untrue.

He said "interested to learn the facts as I am." If you say he is calling others uneducated then you also must believe he is calling himself uneducated, which makes it no insult.

He was only saying that he is not going to take the time to debate someone who is completely unwilling to consider the possibility that he is wrong or not in possession of all the facts. That wouldn't be much of a debate -- as we saw.

If you want a scientific analysis of various GW topics, visit:

http://realclimate.org/