To discuss this matter I would need to be at least as well versed in the subject as you. To refute a hypothesis as this clip requests I would need to see all the data and study all the models in detail.
Since my only reference is statemented conjecture from both sides and tailored data to the context of the sub-message of the programs I am exposed to there is no way I can offer you an intellectual debate on the subject.
When I form assumptions based upon the data I have seen it appears that the Earth cycles we are debating are far more complex than we as a scientific culture can comprehend. I feel the reason there is so much debate over the subject is that we don't have all the facts to af...

To discuss this matter I would need to be at least as well versed in the subject as you. To refute a hypothesis as this clip requests I would need to see all the data and study all the models in detail.
Since my only reference is statemented conjecture from both sides and tailored data to the context of the sub-message of the programs I am exposed to there is no way I can offer you an intellectual debate on the subject.
When I form assumptions based upon the data I have seen it appears that the Earth cycles we are debating are far more complex than we as a scientific culture can comprehend. I feel the reason there is so much debate over the subject is that we don't have all the facts to affirm or refute a theory.
Our climate has changed in the past, It is likely to change in the future. Mankind is a force of nature that affects this biosphere. There are still earthquakes and volcanoes, methane deposits and ozone.
Our position in intergalactic space may be entering an area that has the physical properties (environment) that promotes or curbs greenhouse outgassing.
Humans definately affect the global environment but do we have the ability to reverse a series of events that are currently underway? That is chaos.

I feel the reason there is so much debate over the subject is that we don't have all the facts to affirm or refute a theory.

Perhaps you are right. Then again, perhaps we might have the facts to affirm or refute this theory to a level everyone could agree upon if someone could answer the "modest request" in this clip. I think the point of the clip is that if alarmists are going to make alarmist assumptions and require that the entire planet suffer grave economic disaster under worldwide socialist designs, they should at a minimum provide the keys to the understanding of their concept of anthropogenic global warming and the requirements that would necessitate it's rejection....

I feel the reason there is so much debate over the subject is that we don't have all the facts to affirm or refute a theory.

Perhaps you are right. Then again, perhaps we might have the facts to affirm or refute this theory to a level everyone could agree upon if someone could answer the "modest request" in this clip. I think the point of the clip is that if alarmists are going to make alarmist assumptions and require that the entire planet suffer grave economic disaster under worldwide socialist designs, they should at a minimum provide the keys to the understanding of their concept of anthropogenic global warming and the requirements that would necessitate it's rejection. Because as the science stacks up against their theories they continually change the paradigm. We've seen this throughout history when scientific assumptions are challenged. There is a process we now use to avoid these problems called - The Scientic Process. However, we are being asked to put that aside as well as ignore all the evidence against anthropogenic global warming.
I just want the truth.. I will accept it whatever it is. However, I don't like being asked to sacrifice to someone else's agenda without evidence. So I will continue to ask for it.

Yes, I see your point.
I also would like to know the truth. Or at least the truth as we understand it fully. Most of the time the hypothetical gets incorporated into the actual and distorts the facts before they become widely known. Like gossip it gets changed to fit the feelings at the moment and the audience's beliefs so it can be praised. Soon the facts become hidden in the propaganda of the moment.
By establishing a scientific method to the madness you can prove or disprove to arrive at a core theory that can be tested thru models and observation.
When the media gets ahold of conjecture they can slant a hypothesis either way by using colorful language and rearranging sentences. The nor...

Yes, I see your point.
I also would like to know the truth. Or at least the truth as we understand it fully. Most of the time the hypothetical gets incorporated into the actual and distorts the facts before they become widely known. Like gossip it gets changed to fit the feelings at the moment and the audience's beliefs so it can be praised. Soon the facts become hidden in the propaganda of the moment.
By establishing a scientific method to the madness you can prove or disprove to arrive at a core theory that can be tested thru models and observation.
When the media gets ahold of conjecture they can slant a hypothesis either way by using colorful language and rearranging sentences. The normal joe has no idea what to believe so he sums it up the way he reads it. A scientific paper that is published and has established models and exact observations is difficult to refute. One must be careful to establish an irrefutable base model first tho. Otherwise all children of the base are suspect.

Here are some things I don't know (Haven't bothered to explore) and I should:
1. Over the entire existence of the Earth, What is the base model of the climate. What climate is most common throughout the planets history. When the climate varries, what does it always return to?
2. What was our galactic position during these climate norms. One galactic year is about 225m years. (I think)
Do the climate norms correlate to our position in the galactic revolution?
3. Is there a geological cycle that is constant enough to base a climate model on? Do plate tectonics have a documented cycle that can be predicted?
4. Is there a pattern of magnetic pole reversals that coincides with climate changes? I...

Here are some things I don't know (Haven't bothered to explore) and I should:
1. Over the entire existence of the Earth, What is the base model of the climate. What climate is most common throughout the planets history. When the climate varries, what does it always return to?
2. What was our galactic position during these climate norms. One galactic year is about 225m years. (I think)
Do the climate norms correlate to our position in the galactic revolution?
3. Is there a geological cycle that is constant enough to base a climate model on? Do plate tectonics have a documented cycle that can be predicted?
4. Is there a pattern of magnetic pole reversals that coincides with climate changes? Is there a solar cycle that relates to the core reversals? What is our position in the galactic plane at these periods?
5. Is ther documentation or observations that allude to a methane substrate release cycle in the past. Do those releases coincide with any other observations relating to climate change.
6. Is there a rough estimate of the level of organic processes prior to major extinctions and global climate changes?
7. Since the only reason for us not to curb our climate changing activities is greed, Is there a proposal to effectively police needed changes in lifestyles that will be required to offset our impact on the global climate?
8. Once the scientific method proves our responsibility in the current climate changes are we technologically prepared globally to affect a needed change?
Enough for now...

skwirlinator said:

7. Since the only reason for us not to curb our climate changing activities is greed, Is there a proposal to effectively police needed changes in lifestyles that will be required to offset our impact on the global climate?

Only reason is greed? Most people will interpret this as referring to the corporate profit variety. Yet air conditioning for example comes at the expense of drawing sizeable amounts from the power grids, consequently contributing to emissions. Given that one accepts the anthropogenic link, is it greedy for one to use such "conveniences"?

Would we survive without air conditioning? Sure...it makes us combfortable but mankind has done...

skwirlinator said:

7. Since the only reason for us not to curb our climate changing activities is greed, Is there a proposal to effectively police needed changes in lifestyles that will be required to offset our impact on the global climate?

Only reason is greed? Most people will interpret this as referring to the corporate profit variety. Yet air conditioning for example comes at the expense of drawing sizeable amounts from the power grids, consequently contributing to emissions. Given that one accepts the anthropogenic link, is it greedy for one to use such "conveniences"?

Would we survive without air conditioning? Sure...it makes us combfortable but mankind has done without it for most of our existence. But how might this sort of drastic "changes in lifestyle" impact our life expectancy? How many of the elderly (or otherwise vulnerable) would succumb to the elements? How many in 3rd world countries already do? Should we "police" their development of energy as well for the sake of emissions?

Industrialized nations created an almost doubling of life expectancy and a 10x increase in personal wealth in the 20th century. Are these greedy progresses that we should be prepared to forsake?

I know most alarmists aren't necessarily calling to abolish the power grid, but that goes to the heart of the second half of your question, being proposals that are actually effective measures on the amount of emmisions and thus (given that you accept the link to) climate changes.

Continuing...
I borrowed the following from a recent article I clipped:

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, which means the Kyoto Protocol era. My conclusion is that in spite of many opposite statements the very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth can’t be disputed, at least in a relevant and meaningful time horizon. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe:

* the EU less developed countries -- Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain -- which during this very period tried to catch up with the economic performance of the more develope...

Continuing...
I borrowed the following from a recent article I clipped:

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, which means the Kyoto Protocol era. My conclusion is that in spite of many opposite statements the very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth can’t be disputed, at least in a relevant and meaningful time horizon. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe:

* the EU less developed countries -- Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain -- which during this very period tried to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries. Their rapid economic growth led to the increase of their CO2 emissions in 15 years (in which they signed Kyoto) by 53 percent;

* the European post-communist countries which after the fall of communism went through a fundamental, voluntarily unorganizable transformation shake-out and an inevitable radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing (not stagnating or retreating) practically over night. Their GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 percent;

* the “normal” EU, slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where it’s difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the East German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) increased their CO2 emissions by 4 percent.

The argument is continued that the alarmists are calling for a %30 reduction in CO2 for all of Europe, and I'm sure everyone else is included at some point. Do they not expect similar consequences of the collapsed post-communist countries for the whole of industrialized nations?

LOL, you do realize you are defending greed, right?
Greed and fear are the controlling factors in the world today. The technology that does exist is not attainable by the average person and the reason is because there is not enough wealth to satisfy the greed that controls it.
Drop all energy efficient items to the cost of its manufacture and more people will upgrade their dinosaur appliances.
Stop building internal combustion engine powered vehicles and make the efficient ones affordable instead of more expensive.
Put every light on a motion sensor, Give credits for low energy consumption, give credits for turning in high consumption appliances for efficient ones, Make public transportatio...

LOL, you do realize you are defending greed, right?
Greed and fear are the controlling factors in the world today. The technology that does exist is not attainable by the average person and the reason is because there is not enough wealth to satisfy the greed that controls it.
Drop all energy efficient items to the cost of its manufacture and more people will upgrade their dinosaur appliances.
Stop building internal combustion engine powered vehicles and make the efficient ones affordable instead of more expensive.
Put every light on a motion sensor, Give credits for low energy consumption, give credits for turning in high consumption appliances for efficient ones, Make public transportation more safe and convient than personal transportation.

Humanity must overcome the barrier of money to achieve the changes required

I thought that was the whole point of the questions you posed, to which I was responding; that frankly we don't know to what degree, or even if, it's required based on the current knowledge, and not speculations and predictions.

And you do realize you're demonizing greed as wholly counter-productive, whereas I can see it as possibly one of the most productive forces, not stagnative or repressive. Greed brought us the internet (and arguably even this site) allowing us to even have this inconsequential debate.
Yes, I am a proponent of capitalism...I know, despite being the greatest co...

Humanity must overcome the barrier of money to achieve the changes required

I thought that was the whole point of the questions you posed, to which I was responding; that frankly we don't know to what degree, or even if, it's required based on the current knowledge, and not speculations and predictions.

And you do realize you're demonizing greed as wholly counter-productive, whereas I can see it as possibly one of the most productive forces, not stagnative or repressive. Greed brought us the internet (and arguably even this site) allowing us to even have this inconsequential debate.
Yes, I am a proponent of capitalism...I know, despite being the greatest contributor to the rapid rise of the human condition, it's widely demagogued. Laugh all you want.