What is the evidence for and against the idea that humans are causing global warming?

Question

I don't nessesarily want you to send me somewhere else or tell me to watch a particular movie or read a certain book.

If you could tell me some facts and give some references that are solid and relatively unbiased.

I think that with topics like this, most of us are educated enough to be able to decide for ourselves and not just let experts tell us how to think.

Answer 1

These two articles are brief but persuasive

first from the Guardian UK

If these scientists at this level are making the arguments then I'm persuaded:

Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up'

Tim Radford, science editor

The Guardian,

Wednesday March 30 2005

The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure.

The study contains what its authors call "a stark warning" for the entire world. The wetlands, forests, savannahs, estuaries, coastal fisheries and other habitats that recycle air, water and nutrients for all living creatures are being irretrievably damaged. In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself.

"Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says.

The report, prepared in Washington under the supervision of a board chaired by Robert Watson, the British-born chief scientist at the World Bank and a former scientific adviser to the White House, will be launched today at the Royal Society in London. It warns that:

· Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

· An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated.

· Water withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land.

· At least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing.

· Since 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded.

· Deforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge.

In 1997, a team of biologists and economists tried to put a value on the "business services" provided by nature - the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided by wild plants, the recycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33 trillion, almost twice the global gross national product for that year. But after what today's report, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, calls "an unprecedented period of spending Earth's natural bounty" it was time to check the accounts.

"That is what this assessment has done, and it is a sobering statement with much more red than black on the balance sheet," the scientists warn. "In many cases, it is literally a matter of living on borrowed time. By using up supplies of fresh groundwater faster than they can be recharged, for example, we are depleting assets at the expense of our children."

Flow from rivers has been reduced dramatically. For parts of the year, the Yellow River in China, the Nile in Africa and the Colorado in North America dry up before they reach the ocean. An estimated 90% of the total weight of the ocean's large predators - tuna, swordfish and sharks - has disappeared in recent years. An estimated 12% of bird species, 25% of mammals and more than 30% of all amphibians are threatened with extinction within the next century. Some of them are threatened by invaders.

The Baltic Sea is now home to 100 creatures from other parts of the world, a third of them native to the Great Lakes of America. Conversely, a third of the 170 alien species in the Great Lakes are originally from the Baltic.

Invaders can make dramatic changes: the arrival of the American comb jellyfish in the Black Sea led to the destruction of 26 commercially important stocks of fish. Global warming and climate change, could make it increasingly difficult for surviving species to adapt.

A growing proportion of the world lives in cities, exploiting advanced technology. But nature, the scientists warn, is not something to be enjoyed at the weekend. Conservation of natural spaces is not just a luxury.

"These are dangerous illusions that ignore the vast benefits of nature to the lives of 6 billion people on the planet. We may have distanced ourselves from nature, but we rely completely on the services it delivers."

Date: April 10, 2006

Byline: Ross Gelbspan

(Web site www.heatisonline.org)

In 1995, a panel of the world's leading climate scientists declared that unless humanity cuts its use of coal and oil by 70 percent over the next hundred years, the world will suffer significant disruptions from global warming toward the end of this century.

Just six years later, that same body, the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), declared that warming had ``already affected physical and biological systems'' in many areas of the world. The news that at least some damage was happening faster than predicted was alarming; the United Nations' top environmental official said it ``should sound alarm bells in every national capital.''

Today, all bets are off.

In January, the famed British ecologist James Lovelock declared that we have already passed the ``point of no return.'' Others, including NASA'S James Hansen, one of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists, think we still have about a 10-year grace period in which to make major changes.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, also sees a 10-year timeline and says dramatic cuts in carbon fuel use must be made ``if humanity is to survive.'' And British climate expert Peter Cox says: ``The scientific agenda has moved from improving predictions to thinking about . . . the chances of something awful happening.''

Although the IPCC no longer says exactly when we have to hit a 70 percent reduction of oil and coal to prevent disaster -- those scientists now say as soon as possible -- it's clearly a lot sooner than the end of the century, as they originally thought. To judge how big a change that would be, you need only consider that the current Kyoto Protocol calls for emissions cuts of a mere 8 percent by 2012, and that applies only to industrial countries.

Answer 2

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

.

check this interactive globe

Global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources , air pollution,Non sustainable Agriculture,over pumping carbon aquifers

all concepts which are definitely not part of the Natural Processes of the Natural world

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR,

The most prolific growth on this planet is part of the day in the mist and most of the time under clouds ,and the least growth is always directly in the sun .

To exchange the one for the other means changing local climates

We are exchanging Nature with Tar , concrete and open spaced mono cultures.

In 300 years half of the planets forests have gone ,and in the last 50 years half of the wet lands ,and rain forests

These Areas absorb heat during the day and release heat at night ,

Cause cloud formation(shade).humidifying the air on the surface as well as releasing excess water at the roots that keep rivers flowing ,which in turn brings more water into the Environment .

As well as contributing to absorbing carbon emissions as do the leaves of the trees together with the oceans .

All in all many factors which directly affect the local Environment .

The loss of the above resulting in rivers drying up ,less rain ,desertification,loss of habitat for many species and so on.

dryer and hotter surface environments which can manifest in different weather patterns such as tornadoes or bush fires

I may be stupid or Naive but somehow i believe that lots of these local environmental changes, can add up to affect global weather, If there are enough of them (and there are)

And then on top of that comes the story of the effects of pollutants released into Nature and especially the Air ,by MAN http://earthissues.multiply.com/photos/a...

A cocktail of events and a lot of the ingredients have MAN written all over them

So it is safe to assume that we should look at ourselves ,just a teeny bit ,for possible improvements ,and rectifying Eco errors that are with in our powers.

What is a safer bet

to be or not to be

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 3

There is no scientific evidence proving or suggesting man made global warming. Yes, the earth has warmed in the last century, but that would be expected being that we were emerging from the little ice age of the 1860's.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. The glaciers have been melting now for over 10,000 years. the current rate of melting is similar to previous melting.

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 4

well, it's really hard to explain in simple matter. but take a look in your environment, if your living like in a subdivision or in city. plants/trees has been cut replaced with concrete and feel the effects of the sun. or take the fact that man's action contributed greatly to the destruction of the environment, because global warming is only one of the effects of these actions. observe, feel and think.

Answer 5

according to a recent United Nations survey the meat industry causes more global warming through emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide than all the cars, trucks, suvs. planes ships in the world combined. researches at the university of chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is 50% more effective than switching from a regular car to a hybrid in reducing your impact on global warming.

Answer 6

Global Warming Is Fake

Define - Global Warming

Global Warming: The hypothesis that Earth's atmosphere is warming because of the release of "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. These gases are released into the air from burning gas, oil, coal, wood and other resources which then holds heat in an action similar to the walls of a greenhouse. - Source, Public Broadcasting Service

8 Arguments Against Global Warming

Adapted from The Heartland Institute

Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall.  The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."

Answer 7

First you have to understand how long the earth has been storing up these fossil fuels. The coal, oil and natural gas that we are using now are products of the earth converting plants and animals into their present forms over (often) millions of years. They have been stored now for millions of years without being used until now. By being used now, we are converting these fuels from stored carbon, into released carbon. Thus allowing this released carbon to act as a greenhouse effect gas again.

Since we are talking about a situation where the Earth once had a lot of stored carbon and now that stored carbon is disappearing at a tremendous rate (and will continue into the future) We can be truthful in saying that there is a definite trend, and relationship in the increase of greenhouse gasses. We can also say that these greenhouse gasses would not have been released without the intervention of man. Logically therefore we can say that global warming gasses have been released and any global warming increases are directly attributed to mankind’s releasing them.

The damage done by increased greenhouse emissions has already taken its toll. This is evident by the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. We cannot get the world back the way it was, even as of fifty years ago, much less stop the damage that will still occur in the future. Sure we could try to stop all industry that will cause pollution, but at what cost. Without industry we could not sustain the present world population. Giving up industry and sacrificing billions of people on this planet in the process, is not a viable solution (even trying to merely lower greenhouse emissions is at best a temporary solution).

The biggest problem we have now is not just the fact that we have more greenhouse gasses trapping heat in, but we are getting less and less sunlight being reflected out from the planet. As the snow cover melts from more and more of the planets surface, the sunlight heats up more parts of the earth that once reflected light back out. It is like a dog chasing its tail (until it gets dizzy and falls from exhaustion). As global warming just keeps building on itself till the ecological balance fails, and this planet will no longer sustain the teeming human populations.

Greenhouse effect cure (there are no real cures but this may help till we can find one). First I want to point out that there are no real, viable short term, or easy methods of curing our Global warming woes. The damage to the environment has already been done and is, for all intent and purposes, basically irreversible. It is likely, however, that any type of plan to get rid of Global warming, will require some type of dramatic ecological compromises.

Some will say that all we need to do is give up industry on the planet and the world will eventually go back to the way it was. I say it is too late for that solution (as a short term solution anyway).

My plan, however, will require the use of old tires and recycled plastics. Of course it will require some engineering feats also, and a few ecological compromises. The benefits of using these wasted products will far outweigh the compromises required.

My idea is to build large floating islands (white on top, to reflect sunlight back out of our planet) made from used tires (filled with co2) and recycled plastics. Yes there are engineering and ecological problems, but everyone has to admit there are worse problems in our current situation. So the only feasible solution is to build a bunch of artificial reflection "islands" across the planet.

There will be other benefits realized, once we build enough of these islands. One of the problems associated with the increased temperatures we are experiencing is the possibility of increased hurricane intensity and frequency. Having enough of these floating islands in strategic points in the oceans will help to alleviate this problem also. It is a well known fact that hurricanes form in areas of the ocean where the temperature rises above approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit. If we can keep those areas below that temperature (by reflecting sunlight away), we can prevent the formation of hurricanes. Without these floating islands, hurricanes will probably continue to increase in intensity and frequency…

We need a solution to deal with our Global warming woes, and we need it now. Even if this is a difficult path to follow, it will pay off in the future. The overall problems I see for Greenhouse effect is that we can go green all we want, but Global warming and our constant desire to be comfortable, will eventually undermine any efforts we may do. Unless we can get rid of some of the excess heat in this world, we will always be under the eventual threat of a thermal overheating demise.

Answer 8

the ice caps are melting but what they don't tell you is that with every inch it melts you get another 2-3 inches on the bottom which also will cause flooding.

second yes the ocean is warming and causing some coral reef to die but the coral reef is coming back and is surving. But in addition to that there is a fresh body of water that is huge they found under the ocean that is surfacing and will completely surface over the course of the next couple of years that will cause the temperatures to drop by a half of a degree. Which means that water is icy cold not warm!

And a half of degree may not seem like much but it can cause huge problems for humans since we don't move around like our ancesters.

Not but 10-20 years ago the books written were about rather or not we were leaving a mini ice age or entering one.

The weather and things taking place would indicate we are entering one despite popluar belief.

Last but least we only have about 120 years of history on the weather and earth. Therefore we have no real idea just lots of theories.

Don't believe me? How old is the Grand Canyon? Most will say thousands of years when actuall there is a large part of the Grand Canyon that is only about 130 years old and the stories told about that were: The ground shoke so hard that it split open and took in an entire city.....they believe about a million people died on that one.

Problem global warming isn't happening the earth is taking it's natural course.

The ozone layer also has had to be there for thousands and thousands of years not just recent and not becuase of modern day pollution or everything under it would be dead. But instead everything under it has adapted, which takes thousands of years not a few.

But if you must blame humans. The human f**t causes more pollution than all of our cars. True. Funny but true.

Answer 9

global warming is not all caused by people the earth has changed climate many times in its history we've been through ice ages and naturally we are goning to go through warmer periods. just because the temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree in one hundred years doesn't mean we are all gonna die.

the one degree of temperature rise is  just due to the increase in the population people give off heat.

humans haven't even been here that long. the other is like 6 billion years old and people have only been here for a few thousand years not long enough to record significant data about the temperature of earth

Answer 10

Understanding our role boils down to physics.  Here's detail on the 100+ year history behind CO2 science:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

Here's how we measure mankind's contribution to current CO2 levels though carbon isotope analysis:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/e...

Here's experimetnal confirmation of the net energy flows in and out of the planet, as predicted by physics:

Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/imbalance_...

"Scientists at Columbia University, NASA, and the Department of Energy have found that the Earth is out of energy balance: the Earth is absorbing more energy from sunlight than it is emitting back to space in the form of heat radiation. This imbalance provides confirmation of global warming theory and a measure of the net forcing that human’s are applying to the Earth by adding greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the Earth’s atmosphere."

Additional measured data supporting greenhouse gas theory comes from changing troposphere and stratosphere temperature measurements, which are changing as predicted by greenhouse gas theory:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmo...

Supporting our understanding that this current warming is unique is the evidence that the current rate of climate change has not happened in the recent past:

New Research Confirms Antarctic Thaw Fears - Spiegel Online

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

"...the Pine Island Glacier has shrunk by an average of 3.8 centimeters annually over the past 4,700 years. But the Smith and Pope glaciers have only lost 2.3 centimeters of their thickness annually during the past 14,500 years. Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier -- a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years."

Here's how current man-made CO2 levels and emission rates compare with measurements of past, natural CO2 levels:

"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin, whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities."

"The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm. For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago."

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar...

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/in...

There is no precedent for current CO2 levels or for the resulting rate of climate change, in the entire history of humankind.  While performing this grand experiment on our planet and on ourselves, we're also cranking the volume up to 11 by endorsing the mnost rapidly increasing emissions in developing nations, containing 80% of the world's population.  

With this sort of unusually rapid increase in CO2 we might expect to see accelerating melt rates adn upward-revised estimates:

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserve...

"Ground-based surface temperature data shows that the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts from 10 to 17 days per decade."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eart...

There's an entirely separate line of inquiry that implicates black carbon soot pollution as a major anthropogenic forcing influence as well:

Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming - PhysOrg

http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm...

"Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience."

"Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2."

Of course carbon emissions and black soot air pollution are symptoms of the rapidly expanding global human population.  Don't expect politicians to tackle that primary cause any time soon.

Answer 11

Thats right people, you heard it here: Global warming is caused by human body heat.

Answer 12

the evidence speaks for itself, the point is mid flow of option accept responsibility or deny responsibility, its like religion acceptance or denial , one ozone hole later .....corporate greed etc etc............I believe the people know the answer whithout deliberating evidence and proof. question is will it affect their pockets, yeah sure it will cost you a planet in the long run so the answer is , arrogance deserves its fate.