Then don't let the screen door hit you in the butt!

Chumly, these are the same scientists that also totally wiped out the medieval warm period in order to establish the 'hockey stick graph'--- that notably was rebuked by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003.  Hard to trust those that make the data fit their preconceived models rather than let the data dictate and develope into a/the model......

Chumly, lets see if you've a shread of common sense at all.  Like some of he others on this board, my academic training is as a scientist.  I am going to do something here that is a legitimate engineering estimation technique and that should be enough to convince even you that these gobal warming alarmists deserve neither heed nor credence.  Generally, this technique is called a bounds analysis.  [See here, for a couple of course descriptions that teach this thinking.  I got 1.1 million hits on the search.  I just picked one of the first few. ]  It is intended to discover the maxima and minima of the range of some result over ths domain of its input.  It can be used in the reverse as well, given a range of values, estimate the domain of variability, which I will do here.

Some facts, all of which may be easily Googled.  (1)  the mean temperaure of the planet earth is 288 K.  (2)  The earth's atmosphere accounts for  greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees K, meaning that without its atmosphere, the mean surface temperature of the earth would be a frigid 255 degrees K.  (3)  The present concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 385 ppm.  (4)  Variously, Scientists claim that water vapour, that is, H2O, represents 60-95% of the greenhouse effect. the balance is attributable to an assortment of other greenhouse gases including CO2. (5)  the measured increase in mean surface temperature of the earth over the last century is agreed by science to be 0.6 degrees K.  (6)  Over the last century, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by approximately 35%

What we desire to do here is examine the maximum contribution Human activity might have made to the climate system.

Lets assume that ALL the change in global temperature observed in the last century was caused by CO2 increases,i.e., there were NO natural variations.

Lets also assume that changes in CO@ were the only significant factor in play, i.e., all the change can be blamed on CO2.

And last, lets assume that all the change in CO2 concentration can be blamed on human activity.

Under these asumptions, we see that a 35% increase in CO2 presumably caused a 0.6/33.0 or 1.8% change in the aggregate greenhouse effect.  This suggests that CO2 can be estimated to represent about (3*0.6)/33.0 of the aggregate greenhouse effect bfore the increase, or about 5.4%.  This number agrees very closely with one of the computations made and published by climate scientists that assessed water vapor as 90-95% of the greenhouse effect.  The climate scientists who suggest that water vapor is only 60-70% of the aggregate effect are likely in error, since their result is greatly at variance with observed data.  Interestingly, these are all pro-AGW climate scientists who place the water vapor contribution this low.

Now, Chumly, if you can't see the validity of these estimation techniques and are instead taken in by this junk science Gore and his allies are pedaling, then you are a colossal fool.

Chumly,

If they denounce the IPCC as some UN conspiracy, then point to the
NSF findings which are all USA. Chumly I think you are talking to folk
that think the iraq war is going well and that any suggestion of change
means you're a tree hugger or anti-american.

When we went from
horse transportation to cars the economy boomed. We evolved. Folks
made money. Capitalsim. When we go from oil to the next energy
source, new industries will form, with new booms. Ostriches will be
sniffing sand. Better to be ahead of the boom, I say. That's how
America got great. So let's listen to America's scientists. You guys
are American, right ?

Fair enough, out of the gutter.  As a scientist you should understand why i get heated about this though, as should you.  There is a much larger component in natural climate variability, than the anthropogenic, that is largely ignored.  However, for political reasons only this small factor gets any of the attention.  Please, take to time to read some of the references i posted about climate cycles, periodicities etc.  In addition, I will also say as a scientist, that i don't (believe it or not) discount the anthropogenic factor, but just know and realize there is much more at play in this dynamic system. 

Doesn't it bother you that people like Leo come off as 'scientists' and are more respected even though they haven't had much if any education in the sciences?  You, as have I, have undoubtedly spent 10's of 100's of hours, and dollars in classes and labs learning the in's and out's of your discipline. 

My degrees are in geology, with accessory courses in paleoclimates. 

Again, that is cool, we'll keep it on the up and up and out of the gutter.  Much more civil that way.