Evidence that global warming is largely caused by humans

[beLIEf]

A book I'd recommend is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" By Bjorn Lomborg who is a swedish climatologist.

It should be noted, mind you, that he is emphatically not a global warming denier. He does feel that we are barking up the wrong tree though, and on this point I agree with him.

A documentary by him, titled "Cool it," was recently on circuit here and is well worth the watch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It_(film)

Yes not a denier at all but a rationale view from someone who should professionally speaking only be on one side of the fence.

Thanks for the link for the film  

[Hermes]

When we consider Lungfish's theories http://en.wiped.org/Viki/Lungfish_cycles which in a nutshell suggests of changes in the shape of the earth's orbit, tilt and proximity to the sun we account for the many variations in climate over geological time when there were no people to "cause" anything.

Natural factors contributing to climate change have of course been taken into account by the IPCC, which has analysed diverse data from thousands of scientists in over a hundred countries during the last 26 years.  The IPCC has never claimed that climate change is exclusively anthropogenic, but concludes that they are 95% confidant that human emissions of green house gases has a material impact on global warming.  It is a popular decoy of AGW deniers to sow confusion about this issue by setting up a false dichotomy between natural and anthropogenic causes.

[jasongerm]

I have an honours in geology and did chemistry and environmental geochemistry as well. I am a complete fence sitter on the issue of anthropogenic global warming and find it hard to believe so many "non-scientist" have taken to global warming and pleading for carbon taxes hook-line-and-sincker.

There are much more pressing issues at hand, namely:
1) Water scarcity
2) Population growth and food security
3) Waste management

This global warming business and the fact that a bunch of stupid ignorant fools who read 1 psuedo-scientific article on global warming no believe they are experts.

I dont go around telling economics that: "As a geologist, I know that - after reading the Introduction to Economics for Dummies - to stimulate growth in South Africa's economy we would to kill all the butterflys and harvest fertilizer that emerges out of politicians mouths when they speak."

[Benjammin]

I have an honours in geology and did chemistry and environmental geochemistry as well. I am a complete fence sitter on the issue of anthropogenic global warming and find it hard to believe so many "non-scientist" have taken to global warming and pleading for carbon taxes hook-line-and-sincker.

I am not a climate scientists, but that doesn't mean I cannot take a position of global warming. I trust in the consensus of scientists who are experts in climate science. In the same way that I am not a particle physicists, but don't have to remain neutral on the existence of the Higgs fields. I can put my trust the scientists running CERN. Almost all of my opinions and positions are based on trust.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations.

[Hermes]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations.

The peer support in your reference can hardly be ignored.

[brianvds]

I am not a climate scientists, but that doesn't mean I cannot take a position of global warming. I trust in the consensus of scientists who are experts in climate science. In the same way that I am not a particle physicists, but don't have to remain neutral on the existence of the Higgs fields. I can put my trust the scientists running CERN. Almost all of my opinions and positions are based on trust.

Very skeptical of you. But you are of course right. When I want an opinion on homeopathy, I ask a qualified homeopath... {very evil grin}

[Hermes]

Very skeptical of you. But you are of course right. When I want an opinion on homeopathy, I ask a qualified homeopath... {very evil grin}

For flimflam such as telepathy, fortune telling or talking to the dead there are no experts. 

I love this graph.....

The right hand side of that graph has a suspicious resemblance to a hockey stick....

[Benjammin]

Very skeptical of you. But you are of course right. When I want an opinion on homeopathy, I ask a qualified homeopath... {very evil grin}

I assume you are joking but just to be sure...

You are making an argument from Analogy: Science and Homeopathy both have experts, we trust scientific experts, therefore we should trust homeopathic experts. It is a false analogy of course, science and homeopathy are crucially different. Science works, demonstrably, homeopathy doesn't, demonstrably. Trust is earned not given, planes fly, antibiotics works, homoeopathy fails dismally 

[Hermes]

A good source of articles, updates and comments on global warming can be found at http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[brianvds]

Very skeptical of you. But you are of course right. When I want an opinion on homeopathy, I ask a qualified homeopath... {very evil grin}

I assume you are joking but just to be sure...

You are making an argument from Analogy: Science and Homeopathy both have experts, we trust scientific experts, therefore we should trust homeopathic experts. It is a false analogy of course, science and homeopathy are crucially different. Science works, demonstrably, homeopathy doesn't, demonstrably. Trust is earned not given, planes fly, antibiotics works, homoeopathy fails dismally 

I was partially joking. What you say is of course perfectly true. But what about, say, the science of psychology? Serial killer profiling? Some theories of modern physics? Freudian psychoanalysis? Economics? Stock market analysis? And, to get back on topic, global warming?

One cannot always simply defer to experts. I'm not too sure what else to do though. On some things, apparently we just don't know.

[Gogtjop]

Thank you Hermes. I could not put it better. I go to a medical doctor, not a Homeopath. He may be called a expert but a little bit of asking around and... I also get a plumber if the geyser is not working rather than a dentist.

[Benjammin]

I was partially joking. What you say is of course perfectly true. But what about, say, the science of psychology? Serial killer profiling? Some theories of modern physics? Freudian psychoanalysis? Economics? Stock market analysis? And, to get back on topic, global warming?

One cannot always simply defer to experts. I'm not too sure what else to do though. On some things, apparently we just don't know.

I suggest reading Massimo Pigliucci on the differences between so called hard and soft sciences: http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/strong_inference_and_distinction_between_soft_and_hard_science. It is not that you cannot know anything, it is to understand the limits of your knowledge. Some of the science of global warming is as hard as it comes, you can test CO2 in a lab, it is a greenhouse gas. The long term predictions are softer, climate is complex. What we do know is that we are energising the life sustaining system of the planet, and whatever uncertainties exist should mean more caution not less. That is the reason behind 350.org, we know from geological history that the earth's climate is stable under 350 ppm of CO2. We are beyond that now, and that is really stupid and dangerous.

[brianvds]

I suggest reading Massimo Pigliucci on the differences between so called hard and soft sciences: http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/strong_inference_and_distinction_between_soft_and_hard_science. It is not that you cannot know anything, it is to understand the limits of your knowledge. Some of the science of global warming is as hard as it comes, you can test CO2 in a lab, it is a greenhouse gas. The long term predictions are softer, climate is complex. What we do know is that we are energising the life sustaining system of the planet, and whatever uncertainties exist should mean more caution not less. That is the reason behind 350.org, we know from geological history that the earth's climate is stable under 350 ppm of CO2. We are beyond that now, and that is really stupid and dangerous.

I can guarantee you: we are going to burn every lump of coal and every drop of oil, whatever noble-sounding undertakings we make and whatever international treaties we sign. Might as well get used to it.

I am satisfied that anthopogenic global warming is for real (I am, frankly, deferring to the experts!) I'm not convinced I need to have sleepless nights over it though.

[Benjammin]

I can guarantee you: we are going to burn every lump of coal and every drop of oil, whatever noble-sounding undertakings we make and whatever international treaties we sign. Might as well get used to it.

I am satisfied that anthopogenic global warming is for real (I am, frankly, deferring to the experts!) I'm not convinced I need to have sleepless nights over it though.

In climate talks I often here: 'we didn't move beyond the stone age because we ran out of stones'. That is a false analogy in some ways, but I hope that one day our ancestors look back at the way we burn ancient plant and animal matter with the same horror that we look back at our ancestors banging rocks together to make tools. If we burn all the coal and oil we won't have an atmosphere left, and will probably be closer to Venus than the current earth.

[Gogtjop]

I reckon we'll never run out of oil or coal, simply because at some point it will become so scarce and expensive that world will have no choice but to move onto other technologies, which would make the reserves that ar left at that point, useless.

That is, if we don't kill ourselves before then.

I, for one, can't wait for the oil to run out. Certain arrogant, imperialist warmongering  'superpowers' would finally eat some humble pie when they don't have fuel to power their warplanes... Sure, you can power ICBMs with synthetic fuels, but you base your economy on military power if you don't have cheap, ubandant fuel, OR the desire to freck around in middle east politics if you don't need the oil there....