Hi Paladin,
First off, I notice that you enjoy making things personal, calling me ignorant etc. That's fine. I'm not here to get into a chest-beating competition, nor will I start making assumptions about someone whom I know nothing about (as you have done to me) I am however interested in debating this, my intent here is not to try and show you up or any such nonsense, only to get you to back up the claims you made in your original argument. You can make all the personal attacks and inuendos you like, but at the end of the day I am only interested in whether you back up the actual content of your article.
Yes, you are absolutely right that most of the facts I posted were copied and pasted from various sites, not disputing that at all!
You still however have not directly backed up the following and I quote in your own words:
1) "A single volcano erupting puts out 14.6 billion tons of pollution into the air A DAY."
You still have not produced anything to back that up. In one of your following responses you state
during the high fire-fountaining eruptions at Pu'u O'o the amount of SO2 released was as high as 30,000 tons per day
So, going by your math with S02 making up 3 % of the emmissions, that would be a total of just around 1 million tons per day, which is much less than a single percent of the 14.6 billion tons you said.
Also, in your own words:
"All pollutants that man puts out into the air in a single year is about 1.4 billion tons."
This is also not true. The U.S alone puts out approx 5.8 billion tons per year of C02 emmissions (not counting all the other various gasses) This is approx 23% of global emissions.
So, in fact just C02 alone that man collectively puts into the air per year is more like 25 billion tons, NOT the 1.4 billion you stated. This is 18 times more pollution than you state in your article, and does not count all the other nasties like sulfur, methane etc.
2) "It has been proven 40 years ago by NASA, every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger."
This is blatantly false, and your statement "every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger" sounds like a constant to me.
Then over the course of our discussion, we also came upon this little gem, once again your words-
Why is it that thousands of scientists oppose global warming but only 25 scientist support global warming? Think about that.
There are far more than 25 scientists that support global warming, in fact the majority of climatologists around the world support it. The U.S is one of the last holdouts to change, and every recognized climatological group in the U.S has agreed that, yes, there's a good chance we're contributing to climate change.
I do agree with you on your comments about consensus though. Global warming caused by man is not scientific fact. Actually, I am all for people trying to disprove it. That's actually how science is supposed to work.
1) Credentialed scientists working independently of political/ideological influence
2) Other credentialed peers examinging and trying to shoot holes in/disprove the papers written by their fellows. This is called peer review and happens in scientific publications all the time, publications that most folks will never read.
For the last 20 years the majority of peer review has found that yes, there is a good chance what we are doing is either causing, adding to or accelerating global warming.
Why is it ok to fund research to prove man made global warming but it is sinister for oil companies to do the same thing? If they are going to fund the project just like the left does then all things are equal right? When a report disproves the desired result it is squashed by the left and that is ok with you it seems. But if Exxon wants a scientist to study something they are caught red handed? how much do you think these scientist make for thier positive studies on global warming? you are not dumb enough to think they do it for free are you?
I never said that a report disproving it should be quashed. In fact I welcome it. It does however have to stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists, and has to be free of political or ideological pre-determination. Anyone doing the same for pro-global warming would be equally guilty. Yes, Exxon was caught red handed. Here's why:
If Exxon went out and said
"We'll give 10 thousand bucks to anyone who studies global warming and man's potential impact (or lack thereof) on it"
that's ok. Good on Exxon for promoting science. However, that's not what they did.
What they said was
"we'll pay someone 10 thousand bucks to contradict global warming"
Therefore, they have already reached a pre-determined conclusion before any testing has been done. This basically creates a conflict of interest for any scientist who takes them up on their offer, as his or her work is now under pressure to produce a result that follows a political or ideological bent regardless of what the actual results of the testing may or may not produce.
I do agree with you that the whole thing is very complicated and that exhaustive research needs to be done. I agree with you that yes, global warming is not fact. It is a theory, still open to scrutinization. Also, I believe that there's much going on that affects things adversely. If for example our orbit around the sun were to change that would shake things up drastically. But at the end of the day, I do agree with the current scientific consensus that states that at present:
a) The theory that climate change is occurring appears to be sound (emphasis on appears, it is still afterall theory not fact)

It is highly likely that man's activities are contributing to this climate change.
Thank you, though for reply 13. Some of the theories posted therein are actually quite good, and I agree they merit further study. In fact, I agree it's highly possible and indeed likely that solar activity is a main cause of climate change. However to be fair all of these theories need to be published in scientific journals and open to peer scrutiny, and I see no reason why human activity couldn't be adding to or accelerating this natural climate change to the point that it endangers our current ecology. Rush Limbaugh is not a credentialed scientist, nor am I (I do not presume to know if you are or not) Also Newsweek and the BBC are media outlets, but not scientific journals. If these theories are in those publications, and not the court of public opinion (which really is what newsweek and BBC are)then you indeed do have a good point!