Greeting FARKers

I'm following up on Cool Cal's comment: I know you know this, WW, but in the interest of placating some of the anal climate scientists, I think it's important for people to not say "I do/don't believe in global warming." Of course the earth has been warming, the controversy is how much of this warming is due to GHGs from human activities.

My question, Will, is while you do not deny global warming, do you still concede that the magnitude of human impact is debatable, considering 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is natural water vapor, and that the percent of CO2 responsible is .117 percent, of which 3 percent is of the man made variety. To me this certainly suggests, that while there is in fact a very real and cumulative climate change occurring (as others have in the past) leaping to the conclusion that humans bear the brunt of its source is a gross distortion of reality.

Hey Will. I'm a long time BHTV watcher, and today I saw your link on Fark, and I thought, Oh no, what happened. The 100 months thing is provocative and hysterical, and it makes me nervous when I see those things. I'm not a climate scientist, but I am an energy scientist (or something like that)--so while I'm not an expert, I think I'm conversant. When I see a technical topic (i.e. what is the timeline for changes in energy technology) become a matter of faith used by people to fight a political tug of war, it makes me wonder: is this a total train wreck, or is this what is supposed to happen with an important question? I am too young to have seen such a thing before.

Hey, FARK reader! Look here!