Ha, ha.  Your memory is failing you...

Thank you.  My grammar (and spelling, but then spell checkers help) really suck.

Sorry no.  Providing documentation showing that your statement is incorrect is not a red herring or misleading.  It is how debates are won.  If you can refute the evidence I have provided, please do.  But creating straw men and introducing non sequiturs is not a defense.

No, you alleged that the "overwhelming majority" of scientists agreed with you.  I proved they did not.  I never refuted your allegation the IPCC and some bureaucratic organizations agree with you.  I would be a fool to think you were alone in your opinion.  I know there are many that believe as you do.

But then the scientists rely on data, and the data does not support your opinion.

Sometimes people think this is a complex topic, but basically it's pretty simple: if you are cold, you put a blanket over your body to keep you warm. If you add another blanket, it gets warmers. If you add yet another blanket, it will get even warmer.

We are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which makes the CO2 layer thicker and thicker, thus capturing more heat every year.

The yearly increase isn't that great, about 2 ppm / year (http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/).

During the Triassic there were pretty high levels of CO2, about 2500 ppm.

I suppose it'll take us about 2000 years to reach those levels.

Life was still possible in those days, but the climate was apparently pretty hot, with no ice and with subtropical forests at mid-latitudes ...

You seem to like providing corrections when you have them ...

How do temperatures on Pangea during the Triassic period get blamed on how much CO2 was in the air?

One tropical super continent dominated by inland deserts in the middle of a completely unimpeded global ocean.  There was no Antarctica, there were no northern lands sheltering most of the Arctic from the oceans at large.  If Pangea were the state of things today, no ice caps.

Quite frankly, the Triassic period is a pretty big wet blanket on AGW in general.  Despite such radically different conditions, like a complete lack of massive quantities of ice, it was only averaging 3 celsius hotter than it is now at 6 times the current CO2 levels.  The Sun was hotter back then too.

You fail to grasp how a greenhouse gas such as cO2 works. It's not a blanket. It traps infrared at a certain narrow frequency, and via a logarithmic scale. More co2 doesn't add more heat trapping, it flattens out at a certain level. And that  flattening part has begun a while back. So you can add as much as you want, but until you don't reach toxic levels (about 12%) it will hardly make difference except make plants grow abundantly and conserve water better making them more drought resistant.

Why let Physics get in the way of a cute parable to describe your belief. 

The atmosphere is a layer... what should I've called it then, "The CO2 in the atmosphere gets thicker" ??? That would make no sense. The atmosphere (and CO2) isn't really a layer anyway, I just used it in a manner of speech so that it's easier to understand. There is no real upper bound, it just fades away gradually. I will phrase it differently then: the CO2 density high up in the atmosphere will ALSO increase, just as it does near the surface. But while it won't have an additional effect at the surface, it will create extra insulation at high altitudes because the CO2 density there is low and the heat capture is not saturated there yet. Satisfied?

The pressure of an atmosphere doesn't cause heat. Without an external source of heat, it'll cool down very quickly because of its efficient heat transport (wind). Check the Titan example: thick atmosphere, but very very cold. Even the earth's core will eventually cool down, whether it has a high pressure or not, once the internal radioactive decay process stops.

Petrossa, I think you've picked up a few physics concepts here and there, but you don't know what they really mean. You should take some time to learn more about them.

Titan doesn't have a thick atmosphere, and it's not very cold considering it's location.  It gets about 1% of the solar radiance that Earth does, and manages an 11K temperature increase over the black body norm.  Quite toasty really, considering there's almost no water on the planet.

It's atmosphere is only around 10 times as dense as ours.  Venus is over 90 times as dense.  Venus is also near the sun, the amount of heat being transmitted into the atmosphere is relevant to what the density of the atmosphere means for heat generation.

Titan has relatively low volatility, and a vastly less dense atmosphere, heat generated by air movement is insignificant compared to on Venus, where the atmosphere is basically on fire and extremely volatile compared to Earth.  Heat generated by friction in the atmosphere is immense.

In this thread, logic has been excepted, producing this:

I'm adding some water vapor to the air, I hope it will help cool the earth even if only briefly.

The problem, and I think the real crux of the AGW debate, is that we will get off of fossil fuels eventually.  The market and technology are going that way, it's just going to take time (decades, probably).  AGW proponents are insisting that there is no time to wait for it to happen through natural technological evolution.  The problem is too immediate.  We need a massive shift to save us from going of the AGW cliff.  However those programs will harm 1) the world economy, potentially severely and 2) harm developing nations with the most quality of life to gain in particular.

So the question isn't "should we look for an alternative".  That's happening naturally.  The question is should we harm the progression of the quality of life around the world.  In order for that answer to be "Yes" AGW proponents need to prove two things.  Firstly, they need to prove that the human component of global warming is significant.  Secondly they need to prove that we can actually do something about it.  

If the globe is warming to dangerous levels, but the human contribution is 1% or 2% of the root cause, then it's not really worth potentially upending the world economy.  By the time our changes had any real benefit we'll be off petro-fuels anyway and we should be focusing on figuring out how to survive on a hotter planet rather than trying to solve a problem out of our control.  If the human contribution to warming in 95% of the root cause AND the warming is actually a serious threat in the near-term, then we have a reason to discuss options for fixing the problem.  

I've personally never seen a compelling argument that 1) humans are the primary cause and 2) the problems caused are going to be catastrophic in the next few decades.  Maybe the evidence exists, but I've never seen it and the "We must do something NOW!" attitude of AGW proponents, without actually answering those two questions, makes them hard to take seriously.  

Especially since many pretend that we can fix the problem with just a little will power and a tiny amount of sacrifice.  The real solutions to AGW that have been put forward either 1) don't actually do anything because they let 3rd world development continue unabated or 2) the put serious brakes on the global economy and 3rd world development, thus harming quality of life growth around the world.