Me being smarmy aside, your quote is the real relevant part here, so lets go over it.

“The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.”
Well first as I understand it its actually around 0.75 degrees Centigrade, 1.3 Fahrenheit, in the past century. He leaves off the time scale (150 years rather than 100) and of course selects the lesser of the two equivalent numbers to rhetorically minimize the issue. Not a lie exactly, but deliberately misleading, particularly considering that the last ice age (the one that in particular hit Greenland) was due to a change of only 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, so to pretend, as he seems to, that 0.6 Centigrade is something to sneeze at is plain wrong. Let us press on.

“At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
So by his math he’s basically saying that between 1850 (when the measurements began) and 1950, the global temperature increased by more than 0.3 centigrade? Well I cant dispute that, but again he’s phrasing it to make it sound like he’s not comparing a 100 year timescale to a 50 year timescale. Heres a chart that backs up what he very specifically said, and shows yes, an increase of .03 centigrade over those 100 years, and also shows nearly twice that increase over the last 50 years, for purpose of clarification. Again, not a lie, just delibarately misleading.

“Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change…”
I’m not assuming they stopped entirely, nobody is. They were tested against and shown not to be very significant factors in the current change. Like I demonstrated with the oceanic temperature and the sunspots, they still happen, they just arent the cause of this change, or play such a small part as to be statistically insignificant. I realize he’s talking about the 1850-1950 scale though, so lets continue.

“…then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
The math is as follows:
+30% CO2 = +.33 Degree Centigrade
Therefore:
+100% CO2 = bit less than +1.0 Degree Centigrade
Which sounda about right I suppose, that the doubling of CO2 gaseses should lead to a 1 degree increase. We’re at a 0.75 degree increase right now. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in guoting this article, did you just substantiate my point?

Your evidence is vaguely waving your hand back over your shoulder and claiming you “proved” something elsewhere….what a crock. Though the indisputable FSM pirate graph is much appreciated

But, you want more data, fine. Here you go….This just debunks your main argument regarding warming being 100% due to man…follow the link for maximal data…

“The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

So to summarize: I present evidence, you say it doesnt exist. I present theory, you say its flawed in ways it obviously isn’t. I present argumentative proof, and you throw toilets at me. (though I of course find this particular graph more enlightening, yar) I provide analysis, you provide empty rhetoric. Show of hands, anyone surprised?

Your start with a bunch of assumptions and act as if they are all proven. Your assumptions are faulty. You discounted other environmental and solar factors! Essentially huge issues, which have, in the past, duplicated the events of today, even without any extra carbon production by mankind. Then you hang your entire theory on greehouse gases and say QED, done!

I could show you a chart demonstrating a correlation between the number of toilets and the warming of the environment and it would be a like-wise useless theory to explain the warming

These systems are enormous, and to some extent, self-regulating. Homeostasis is a powerful thing within ecosystems…..

If you feel my 100% is incorrect though (say 5% margin of error) and the ecosystem and sun are not relevant contributors to the temperature increase, then seriously, what else is left but the alien heat ray? In what way is a number that accounts for the other rational possibilities insufficient?

Likewise my 66% for the fossil fuel level of contribution to the problem was inferred from the data I linked to earlier. I can show you the math if you like but it would take quite a while to type it all out since I cant just show the spreadsheet I used.

Two numbers, neither ass-based. Your rebuttal?

I point out the snow only as a counter-point to the folks who say that a week of indian summer proves global warming. temperatures fluctuate around a mean, and a hot spell is likely to be “evened out” by a cold one.

I did ask for a number, but a scientifically derived one. I wasn’t really interested in a one randomly pulled from someones rectum.

If the science is so clear, there should be a very well defined percent, or even range of percentages of human involvment of the current warming cycle. But I haven’t seen a good one.

I see no problem with having a debate where the strictly enforced condition for admission is “you must at least acknowledge the existence of this much empirical evidence to enter”, but that isnt the debate beind had either here or politically. Pedro says there is no number, I give him a number. You say theres no proof it isnt non-natural, I prove it basically can’t be natural. Someone else says there’s cost problems, I argue that while energy saving devices may require upfront investment, not only is the long term savings greater, but the investment itself can be offset with govt initiatives. Time and time again the entire opposition argument is coming from nothing more than ignorance.

“We dont know enough because we dont know X.”
“Actually, Very much X, here’s the chart.”
“Oh, well then we dont know Y now.”
“Y’s on page 5.”
“Ah, Z then.”
“Your thumbs covering it up, see? Says Z right there.”
“Oh… well still we dont know X though.”
“I JUST SHOWED YOU X.”
“Don’t shout me down just because I’m not convinced, why are you so opposed to open debate? For all you know I’m Einstein! And Jesus!”
Rinse. Repeat.

And BTW, its ironic that you choose Pedro as your example on this site of bad things said. Have you seen some of te truly evil things said by your side? And Pedro is the problem?

And, its funny, but I think of real science, as opposed to Hollywood/politicized science, as the real good guy in this. Thre are scientists out there who won’t sell out and seek the truth – instead of whats politically expedient.

My 66% was my rough estimate of how much of it is caused specifically by the burning of fossil fuels. The remaining third are due to other pollutants, like chloroflourocarbons. I maintain that 100% of the warming is anthropogenic, but should probably clarify. I explained how any natural warming cannot be caused within the earth’s ecosystem itself (see above) but yes, in theory a warming sun would also increase the globe’s temperature. Breifly, since sunspots burn brighter than the rest of the sun, more of them means the sun is burning hotter, making the Earth warmer. And yes, I will concede as much as there are relatively more sunspots now than there were 100 years ago, and its not impossible to draw a corrolary to global temperature. Oh my, but I am certainly in trouble what with my poorly thought out support of anthropogenic climate change. Oh Noes. For shame on that entire scientific community for deceiving me like this.
I am, of course making a concession in saying the sun is warmer now, but here’s the trick: The number of sunspots has not changed significantly in the past 20 years, and yet global temperature has increased 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit in that same time. Therefore, even accepting that the hotter sun might have an effect, it is clearly a quite frankly negligible one. Perhaps I should requantify my statement then and change my statement to read 99.9% instead of the full 100%, but I believe the point remains intact.

If its true, if the science is good, you all should welcome debate – shouldn’t you?
Provided that by debate we’re talking about the free exchange of ideals evidence and demonstrable hypothesis, and not, for instance, Pedro saying “How globe be warmenering when am snowing now!! S-M-R-T!!” or your making unscientific corporate shills aalogous to Galilieo, yes, debate is always welcome. Debate that denies the existence of the evidence however is not.

Incidentally, I would actually like to thank the anti-science crowd here, because without the constant drones of “nobody can prove the sun exists” and such, I never would have done my own research and found out the truth for myself. I’d recommend they try it themselves, but that might deprive other people like me from having their minds broadened in spites of people like them.

How on God’s hot earth do you know the changes aren’t natural – like the sun warming? You are the only person any place I have heard say the current minor warm-up is 100% man made. What happened to your 66%?

And I am not trying to shut up man-made global warming advocates. I am pointing out holes and fallacies in the arguments and asking questions I have yet to see addressed. And my bull-sh*t meter has been ticking big time as I see and hear all the efforts to cow the opposition into silence via career threats etc.

And yes. I have seen a lot of hysteria over the last thirty years. We are running out of natural resources, over population, great far sweeping starvation, global cooling etc. I haven’t seem them borne out. We are living longer. You will pardon me, then, if I am trustful of the latest doomsday scenario – some of which (rfom Al Gore) has already been retracted. If its true, if the science is good, you all should welcome debate – shouldn’t you?

Therefore, as any sane person can see (again, apologies for assuming so much of you) the cause of global warming is not natural, and therefore 100% Man-Made.

I know that you nor your ‘experts’ know can answer the question honestly.

So not only is science a lie, so is logic. How nice for you.

nimmer, You are increasingly without substance and childish… If I’m wrong, show it. Prove all global warming is all man made.

Since I’ve just shown you to be, who would have guessed it, Wrong of all things, let me ask you, what substance do you have Dugger? Your argument consists exclusively of “Well people have been wrong before” and “Anecdotes prove all of science wrong. If you want to believe that all the evidence on our side can be dismissed with obtuse anecdotes, then I am compelled to ask, where is the evidence on your side that has undergone the rigors of dispassionate scientific review?

“basically all the unnatural climate change has been caused by humans.”

Did you go to the genius encyclopaedia to come up with that? I guess I could say all natural global warming is not man made. Right? Genius?

Again, what percentage of the almost 1 degree increase since about 1900 is caused by man. Your unprofessional 66% opinion is no better than mine. What do your scientists say? Surely if its their ‘consensus’, you can dash off several of their ‘proofs’ right away.

And you know what? I know that you nor your ‘experts’ know can answer the question honestly. Its a political matter with you guys and a matter of faith. The people who doubt 100% man made global warming are the ‘right’ enemies for you.

There have been great periods of warming and cooling in the past. Why isn’t this modest short period of warming one of them, or at least a significant contributor. Why? Why was greenland green? Why could we grow citrus in south Ga. then and not now? Why do true believers want to shut people up?

nimmer,

You are increasingly without substance and childish. You have never actually proven that you can fog a mirror, much less participate in a debate with adults. If I’m wrong, show it. Prove all global warming is all man made. I doubt you will be able to discuss it for two posts without dissolving into a screeching emotional lather.

…um, Pedro… basically all the unnatural climate change has been caused by humans. Pretending that otherwise has ever been the case while trying to laugh hurrhurr, scientists are so stoopud doesnt change that. Here’s where I answered that question for you before (and no surprise that you still continue to pretend that the question itself is unanswerable) and gave based on my admittedly severely unprofessional view of the available evidence that 66% of the warming can be attibuted to fossil fuel consumption specifically. I and others have provided facts, analysis, theorys, proposals and evidence to support the GW side of the argument, all you, in the opposition, have, is pretending that it all doesnt exist because you dont want it too, and scientists are stupid because this one time, at band camp, these couple of scientists got a lot of press when they came up with “global cooling,” a theory which, for reason of it being demonstrably false, never caught on. Your argument is not based on any supportive evidence, merely the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the mountains of legitimate evidence that proves you wrong. You’re pathetic, Pedro. Thats why the sane can’t be bothered to argue with you.

Rex since the science is so well-formed, please tell how MUCH humans have warmed the planet? Is it 98% of warming is human caused, or 2%?

Cause the answer is important….and all you (ahem)”scientists” out there can’t seem to get a straight answer to this critical question.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming

Dugger, I could give you a breakdown of how wrong and stupid and wrong and stupid you are, but a) everyone’s done it and b) you’re not worth the effort.

So I will just say shut up, Dugger.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html

So was blood-letting. Today, not so much.