Monique -
Why would you use a West Virginia mining engineer (Monte Hieb) as an expert resource on climate change? The website you are basing your argument on is not peer reviewed. He is not a climate scientist. He has not published any peer reviewed papers on climate science that I could find. Most of his website is devoted to fossil hobbyists.

I highly recommend using real scientists and real science. The website RealClimate.org has an excellent discussion.

Robert, the idea is to

a.) put the facts on the table and

b.) cite the source.

It's pointless to do one but not the other; i.e., to criticize the source generally without discussing the specific data point.

If you have a source/link that cites a figure other than the 6%, trot it out. In point of fact, there is nothing more important in the AGW debate than quantifying the extent of man's role in the phenomenon. If the 6% is wrong, I'd like to know.

Monique -

How do you know they are facts? There is no basis for credibility. This simply comes across as another appeal to ignorance.

You don't like my source, Robert. That's fine.

Fill in the blank. What's the number? Quantify man's culpability in the phenomenon of global warming.

... the above request is not limited to Robert.

This is an open invitation for links that break down the amount of greenhouse gas generated by man and by Mother Nature.

I'll look around in a little while, but I find it interesting that Robert would call your data offering an "appeal to ignorance," (which it wasn't) when all he has offered in return is an ad hominem. You shouldn't use logic terminology without vetting your own arguments for validity first.

[Fwiw, I think 6% is probably much too low, but I don't know the right answer yet. I'll predict 30%, just for the fun of it. Also, an appeal to ignorance would be saying that since we don't have evidence for man's role in global warming, we can conclude that man is not responsible for it. What Monique did is present a piece of evidence, and argue for a conclusion that followed from it. Whether or not she is right depends on the soundness of the data, but the argument itself was perfectly logical and valid.)

Mario -
What I wrote was 'an appeal to ignorance'. That was a statement of fact, not a reference to sophistry.

The example used by Monique is not peer reviewed. The person who created it is not a climate scientist - he is a mining engineer. The example is without authority and the information is not current.

The scientific research being conducted on this issue involves thousands of actual climate scientists, using highly complex computer models and world-wide data collection. The current assessment report being conducted by the IPCC using the 2007 study as a benchmark should reveal valuable, qualified, current, peer reviewed information on the anthropogenic effect on global warming.

This might be right, but I think it's still very misleading. Without 'any' greenhouse effect, we'd be sitting on a frozen ball of rock, and it may have happened before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

The lack of 'greenhouse effect' is why the moon is 240 below zero in the shade.

It's totally natural to have a 'greenhouse effect', the issue is that the earth is a very delicate balance, and our 5% contribution to a seemingly well-balanced system (at least for the last 50,000 years) represents a -massive- change.

I think part of the blame goes to the left and Al Gore on this issue too, for doing the same thing as this data but in the opposite way. Most people don't contemplate the big picture, they only see the (very zoomed-in) charts of An Inconvenient Truth and say 'woah, we're all gonna die!'

So yes, water vapor and natural factors make up the lion's share of what keeps the planet from being a frigid ball of lifeless ice, that doesn't mean that we can start piling ever-more contaminants into the air that trap more heat!

Posted by Robert Balliot:
Why would you use a West Virginia mining engineer (Monte Hieb) as an expert resource on climate change? The website you are basing your argument on is not peer reviewed. He is not a climate scientist.

Well, first, "climate scientists". like "environmental scientist" is something that you become by declaration. There are no objective criteria for assuming either title.

"peer review". I think peers are likely to succumb to an artificial consensus. One sees this all of the time with people who tend to associate chiefly with one another, university faculty for instance.

Third time, Robert. You keep skating around the issue. What is man's contribution to greenhouse gases?

Robert Balliot,
IF you can't tell us that Monique's diagram is wrong and the proper percentage is "x" and here is why, then just shut up. You come off like a self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, pompous ass - with no facts or figures..
So just tell us - what's the number?? Do you have a clue??
I can tell you this - the entire global warming scam is just the latest Y2K nonsense. And that is peer reviewed.

'Mike', 'Warrington/Donald', Monique -

The test results for science proficiency in Rhode Island certainly validates Mike Capelli's notion of 'peer review'.

The comments I made assume readers have at least a high school level of proficiency in science. Monique's comments appeal to the readers who do not. When I referred to her comments as 'an appeal to ignorance', I unintentionally insulted Mike Capelli.

Once again, Mr. Smartypants Balliot,
What...is...the...number???

Since you obviously don't know, let me suggest that you adhere to the old saying, "Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."