Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Final-Fan]

OK. So you don't want to pursue CO2 increases and not global warming. That's completely fine, but I would have preferred that you said so as soon as I said "let's talk about CO2 increases and not global warming".

(The rest is secondary.)

I only remember calling your data into question in that it was totally misleading as far as human contributions to greenhouse gases. For instance, it claims that humans contribute less than 4% of CO2 production. I had a hard time believing that number, since I didn't know the source for it, but Wikipedia agrees. Yet at the same time Wikipedia explains how that number is totally misleading as far as contributions to total atmospheric levels are concerned:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% percent of total CO₂ emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. These natural sources are balanced by natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The increase in carbon dioxide concentration arises because the increase from human activity is not balanced by a corresponding sink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere

So it's like there's a reservoir that gets a million gallons of inflow every day, and drains a million gallons a day, and then somebody diverts another 40,000 gallons a day into it. Not much in comparison, but it has all the credit for increasing the reservoir level. Things like "This graph only shows a correlation and utterly fails to break down or label major influences such as volcanic eruptions" aren't significant to this analogy, or the discussion, because we have certainly not seen a massive increase in volcanic activity in the last 50 years, nor, AFAIK, have we seen natural increases on the necessary scale anywhere else (or natural decreases in carbon sinks). Equal activity = equal CO2 levels.

The problem you don't see is that I don't buy into much of the data you presented... yet I try to address it anyways. You call my data into question so I find new data. So when you insist that I respond to this data and the data is phrased into this time period and you want me to answer for a specific shape in the graph and you ask that we only focus on this point and nothing else you are absolutely shaping the debate.

BUT IT'S YOUR DATA. I got it from the same source your website got the stuff you quoted from. Didn't you know that? [edit: I can't blame you too much, as I didn't tell you.] As for wanting to discuss the massive spike in the last 200 years, well, isn't that natural? The rest of the the graph is relatively boring. [well, the ice age cycles in the longer graph aren't boring...] I specifically divorced this discussion from the GW debate and if you didn't want to follow me there ... well, don't.