How do you know that global warming is a man-made thing?

1. CO2 is increasing in the air at an exponential rate, with no sign of slowing down.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

2. The amount of CO2 in the air has increased 37% since the industrial revolution.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/...

3. This rise is caused entirely by human beings. Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the air shows that it increasingly contains "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes the planet to warm. This has been known (and unchallenged) since the 19th century, so I won't post a link.

5. The planet is actually getting warmer.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

6. Natural climatic forcings can be ruled out as causes of the current warmth:

(6a). Ice ages and inter-glacial periods are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit, called "orbital forcing." Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, and should be slowly cooling the planet right now.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207...

(6b). Solar activity peaked in 1957-58, and has been unsteadily declining since that time.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

7. If the warmth is due to the greenhouse effect, we should see the stratosphere getting cooler as more heat is trapped at the surface. This is in fact exactly what we have seen. This also refutes non-GHG causes for the current warmth.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.ht...

In addition to the peer-reviewed science cited above, a good overview of the attribution evidence (including much more subtle statistical tests) can be found here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch0...

I invite you to compare the quality of sources cited in this answer with anything cited by GW skeptics. Then draw your own conclusions.

Ok. The earth is getting warmer. Agreed. We need to conserve. Agreed. We need to find supplemental energy sources. Agreed. But, we were told for 15 years that it was caused by man made co2 build up. Then, the ice core data came in and showed that historically, hot temperatures came before increases in co2. Hmm. The 'consensus' scientists and Al Bore, err, Gore, dance around that like a hot potato. They have no answer, it was not what they expected. Recent analysis of plant data from the ice samples shows the earth has been hotter than it is now, long before anyone burned a drop of gas or an ounce of coal. I am sure the plethora of links quoted here will take you to these findings and they are in many reports, just google it. The very backbone of the 'man made global warming' theory is that more co2 causes hotter temps. But the evidence is not there. So why still cry that the sky is falling? Follow the money. Big business does not want to I can assure you. I am in big business. The last thing we want to do is raise prices. And raise prices is EXACTLY what we will do when we carbon taxes are foced on us. Who will pay? YOU will, and it will be a lot. More people will be forced into the poverty level. The cost of combatting global warming will be overwhelming. So who benefits? All the scientists who get government and private funding to study man made global warming, that is who. That is where the money trail ends. Remember, these are the same experts who said an ice age was coming in 1978 (Time Magazine cover story, among other rags). These are also the same 'experts' who predicted a 95% chance in 2006 of above average hurricane activity. We had ZERO U.S. storms. So if you want to believe them, go ahead. They will spin the data, but if you look real close, the dots just don't connect to definitively put the finger of blame on man alone.

How can you be sure it isn't? Maybe more research is needed to prove it conclusively, but that research should be done by scientists, not politicians. "I don't believe in global warming" is a catch-phrase too, and it's a foolish one because everyone knows the Earth is getting warmer. The only question open for debate is what's causing it. However, even George W. Bush, who made his anti-environmentalist stance a big part of his 2000 campaign, has acknowledged that something should be done. Think about that.

Personally, I don't care whether it's man-made or not, because that's not the only reason why we need to reduce emissions. Here in the Phoenix area, we have high pollution warnings on a regular basis, often serious enough that they tell even healthy adults to stay inside or limit their outdoor activities. If air that is unsafe to breathe isn't enough to convince you that something should be done to improve air quality, what will it take?

Danzr, you summed up the typical neocon attitude almost too perfectly: "We'll all be dead before it matters." Do you have any idea how selfish and shortsighted that is? What about future generations? What about your own children? This attitude is being applied to finances as well as the environment, and someday, not too far in the future, this selfish and twisted idea of utopia is going to self-destruct if we don't start thinking ahead.

Everything you need to know is on Google search engine. Everything that someone would site would either

A. Be too scientific because it would go way over your head trying to decipher government and NASA web sites that provide graphs with comparisons for you to come to the right conclusions.

OR B. The source that you would understand would appear as propaganda to you, so I know for a fact you never watched "An Inconvenient Truth" to debate about this properly.

I insist upon answering you through your capacity to reason.

The world is not very big and change is essential to growth. You don't think over hunting and cropping an area forced early civilizations to abandon their cities?

You don't think that the plankton bloom in the ocean is the bottom of the food chain of life and that it is directly influenced by polluted run off from an industrialized world?

You don't think that altering the very nature of our farming practices has altered what is emitted into our little planet?

Have you ever looked into a fish bowl? You have to change the water for the fish to stay alive, right? Well, the earth is one big gravity well in space, do you think the earth can keep up with changing or filtering our air in the oxygen belts that comprise of only 30% of our manufactured oxygen we depend upon?

C'mon, man... its common sense, there are now billions and billions of us when there were only a couple of billion not too long ago and not too long before that, only millions and millions.

Can you grasp even one billion?

Have you ever seen termite colonies or ants?

Have you ever seen that if one colony takes over a territory that it alters the very land scape and what will grow there or what insects it detracts or attracts or does it all just stay static with no environmental impact?

Look at a satellite picture of our planet on the dark side of the earth in outer space, and really get a perspective on what kind of an influence we have made on the planets atmosphere, just the electric lights alone lighting up the earth should give you some kind of a clue.

Global Warming ?? Of course it is warming. The studies of geology ( Univ. Colorado), Oceanology( Tex. A.& M.), Volcanology (Univ. St. Petersburg) [U.S.S.R.], Natural Climatology( Univ. Moscow) [U.S.S.R.], all agree, that since the last ICE AGE, 15,000 to 20,000 years, ago when the northern 1/3 of the USA was under giant glaciers, THE EARTH IS IN ANOTHER - ANOTHER TIME SPAN OF NATURALLY WARMING!!!

The doom's day prophiets saying that man has totally caused this warming span, we are now in, is only trying to sucker the gullable in, so as to make BUCKETS OF MONEY, and work not, produce not( except for verbal scatology), benefit others not, etc.

They also are quick to point the finger at every one who does not agree with them !! How ever, educated people know at least two (2) facts: 1. Some one is always trying to stir up scatology for fun and or profit, 2. The person doing the pointing, always has THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK TO THEM !!!!! WHAT IS THE POINTER TRYING TO HIDE, BY TRYING TO HAVE PEOPLE LOOK THE OTHER WAY, AND EXACTLY WHAT ARE THE THREE FINGERS TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE ????

Uncle Wil

This is going to be very long. But you wanted the evidence, so... Here are just a few of the things I've read:

This is simple and convincing. It shows how about 40 years ago, man took over control of the climate from nature (and we ought to give it back):

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

This shows the errors of the skeptics arguments:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

These guys are good, if a little disorganized:

http://www.realclimate.org/

"climate from climate scientists"

I've read the whole summary and a fair chunk of the full report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

This shows it's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2...

This blows the skeptics arguments out of the water:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

These show that there is a true scientific consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570... and:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

These are some good web sites, with lots of scientific data:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

Good book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Makers-Changing-Clim...

That's not the half of it. I've spent many hours researching it. But even this piece goes way beyond "catch phrases".

This quote by someone impressive, reflects my personal experience:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Actually it isn't completely man made. In fact, nature such as valconoes help to create the wholes in the ozone. Only the Earth has basically it's own natural immune system that can actually defend itself to a certain degree. The OVER consumtion of it's resources (such as trees) and EXCESSIVE pollution that we cause that makes it so that hte Eart just can't keep up. It can be compared to s person really. If we get a cold we can take care of it. But if we have cancer, aids and a flu...we die. Sorry I don't have a reference handy for you. I like to obtain my knowledge from multiple sources so as not to obtain a bias point of view. This is just something that I learned awhile back while researching something, that I thought, was entirely different. You can probobly google a few key words however too get the same info...

I have an instructive anecdote for you:

Customer: "Tell me how you configured those servers and network so the next time I can have Johnny here do it"

Technician: "Sure, no problem. Have Johnny read seven big books and take seven hard tests and then he will have his system engineer certificate and will know how to do it."

If you are that concerned about it, you have a responsibility to educate yourself. Start with the scientific method, then do some physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, ecology, paleontology and history of science. Once you have some basic understanding you should be able make your own judgments. Until then, believe what you want to believe.

Me personally? When I first saw the Mauna Loa graph, I was already grounded in the sciences so the implications were immediately apparent. Fossil fuels are the result of storing 100's of millions of years of carbon. How can it possibly be benign to release it in the span of 100's of years?

Try doing a google search (or any other search engine). We basically release godknows how many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, plus other gasses which cause global warming. We also chop/burn down millions of acres of trees which would have otherwise taken in a lot of carbon dioxide.

While it is true other animals also release carbon dioxide and possibly other greenhouse gasses, that amount is not particularly increasing, while mans is. In fact global warming seems to parallel mans emissions. Amazing huh.

particular it has exchange right into a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways lots money particular communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "analyze".besides there is only lots you're able to do ,regardless of each and every thing whoever controls the climate controls the international.concern is the final political motivator. climate exchange is a factor of the character of the planet.difficulty-unfastened sense is to have sparkling potential yet until there's a greenback in all of it that happens is talk,talk and greater talk.government regulations,fines and outcomes(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We truly choose sparkling air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i do no longer waste potential purely like many different individuals.i take advantage of potential and don't decide for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I truly have a topic with Gore the guru who flies around a gasoline guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly lower back and forth to California.remember her asserting she desires to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we are able to all start up by ability of utilising the hot potential saving gentle bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,nicely looks like a sturdy theory on the time. i think you all heard that some genius flesh presser wanted to tax cow farmers for any that very own greater suitable than one hundred for emitting "methane gasoline" yeah this is genuine.can we bottle it truly?Or on 2nd theory deliver some from the bull to that flesh presser as he's conscious the B.S. whilst he sees or smells it.