Evidence that global warming is largely caused by humans

Just to check if we are on the same page here >:D

Gore said so… >:D

and that other “snotkop” too, cant remember the kid’s name, Leonardo?


Seriously though, one doesnt need an expert, scientist, politician or movie star to be able to grasp and notice the obvious. Anyway, what else are capable of causing it? The last couple rhinos?

It’s a bit like asking what the single most compelling bit of evidence for evolution is: it doesn’t really work like that. The evidence for both evolution and global warming is by its very nature built up of lots of separate bits. It is perhaps partially why global warming skeptics, just like evolution skeptics, are taken so much more seriously than, say, flat earthers: it requires a fairly broad knowledge to even understand the evidence, hence little holes picked in it here and there in scattershot manner can appear superficially convincing.

Not that I know all that much about global warming. I confess that the whole thing doesn’t interest me much.

Not sure that is necessarily the case. Darwin had but a smidgen of the current evidence available during his hay-day, yet something must have moved him to come up with his conclusion.

So what, to you, is the obvious?


To me, we’re overpopulated, and we’re wrecking the planet on every level that we possibly can. My knowledge on global warming per-se is mediocre to say the least, (I have watched the more popular movies on the subject and read up on it but generally have the same attitude towards it as brian). We’re losing wetlands, we’re losing species, the ice caps are melting, we’re accidently nuking areas and upsetting natural habitats, our freaking atmospheric space is littered with rubbish. What more can one say (we have rubbish on the moon and bits of electronic gadget roaming Mars?) I dont like the human race all that much and am willing to attribute just about any negative to them.

I voted “The experts say so” for the same reason I go to the doctor when I am sick. I am not qualified, so I go to the expert. I may go for a second opinion but if the vast majority of qualified experts tell you something you got to start believing them.

Read his book: his evidence is absolutely overwhelming. It is of course much more so today.

Anyway, my point was simply that in both the case of evolution and global warming, the evidence is a puzzle, that is built up of lots of separate bits, with the picture slowly becoming ever more clear and convincing the more of the pieces you assemble.

It is one mass hysteria that I don’t have sleepless nights over though.

I can’t quite agree with that statement - who decides who the experts are? I’m sure that a whole bunch of priests and dominees will think of themselves as ‘qualified experst’ on the matter of god and religion and I’m not about to start believing them…
Anyways, I work in the environmental field so while I maintain that ‘global warming’ is a bit of a misnomer, climate change is a very real phenomenon (yes, we measure these things, and the statistical analysis of the world’s temperatures is a b*tch, trust me). The human race is messing up a whole lot of ecological systems in a whole lot of ways, and our race has been doing this for a very very long time. What we need to start understanding as a species is that we are not separate from the ecological systems we find ourselves in. All manner of animals alter their habitats to suit them better, or move to more suitable habitats. Build things. Break things. Emit gasses and things etc etc. Difference is that we have no natural enemies (apart from those friggin suicide bombers) to keep our populations in check. And that’s why the manner in which we are altering our environments is sort of throwing the whole thing out of whack. Possibly irreparably. And the majority of us think that this is OK, because god mos told us that we are above the natural world. Arrogance makes me angry.

Oo … excellent counter!

Difference is that we have no natural enemies
Do germs count? :)


No individual can be an expert in every field of study. At school we already start choosing subjects and in tertiary education the field of study becomes more specialized; on a post graduate level even more so. For this reason it sometimes becomes necessary to rely on the views of experts rather than to follow our own mind in a field where we lack the expertise. Deference to experts comes into play here.
If the topic is physics, we rely on the expertise of physicists; if it is climate change, we rely on climatologists; if it is botany, we rely on botanists, etc. Sometimes there is no consensus and we have to judge which experts can be trusted. Then it is advisable to assess the esteem in which these experts are held among their peers. The majority view of such highly esteemed experts would then be the most reliable to adopt.
For flimflam such as telepathy, fortune telling or talking to the dead there are no experts. The dominee or priest may have some expertise in the dogma of a specific religion or church, but there is no evidence for the existence of deities in which one can obtain expertise, and it should therefore be treated as flimflam.
Global warming/climate change is a specialized field in which most of us probably lack expertise. Deference to experts would then be the most appropriate strategy.

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.

The crux for me lies in “independently verifiable”. Can I take the evidence from the expert to study it, possibly reproduce it, and validate that it’s legit? I don’t necessarily HAVE to do this for every claim but once that evidence is out there it means many other experts can study, reproduce and critique it. Giving us all a much better mechanism of verification than “I’m the expert STFU”.

As I understand global warming skeptics are cynical at how much we can attribute global warming to humans and seem to say this could be a natural occurrence in earths history. Most do not deny global warming itself.

Myself I think humans will find a solution to this. People are looking at ways to solving the problem. I am sure we will find some innovative solutions to the problem and still be able to make a buck in the process. 8)

I used to be of the opinion that of course global warming was entirely caused by our parasitic species. I was part of the climate justice movement and was an ardent activist but over the last 5 or so years I have realised that as a race we are arrogant and love thinking we caused everything!

When we consider Milankovitch’s theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_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. We have evidence of this in pollen samples from paleo-climates and changes in oxygen isotopes in soil which change from isotope 16 to 17 depending on whether the earth was in an “ice-age” or not and that this has happened approx 31 times over millions of years.

I actually don’t think we have as much of an effect as we would like to think although of course statistics show there has been a measurable increase in average temperatures since the Industrial revolution. This could also be coincidentally an interstadial period of natural warming.

Saying that I continue to recycle and walk and cycle and conserve electricity consumption and all the usual things that would be associated with a climate conscious citizen.

What I don’t agree with is the guilt complex associated with it - I think “offsetting your carbon” by usually paying some company to plant trees for you is akin to the catholic sentiment of indulgence - paying to forgive your sins. Repent now!!! Relieve your self of your debt of carbon!!!

A book I’d recommend is “The Skeptical Environmentalist” By Bjorn Lomborg who is a swedish climatologist.

I love this graph…


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.

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 8)

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.

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.”

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.

The peer support in your reference can hardly be ignored.