Possible attributing factor for Global Warming?

A specie NOT from our Universe is flooding everything to get rid of all species from earth so they can claim earth. Mike

No, it's too small, and the energy would have heated the planet anyways. Even the waste heat from energy use in homes is too small to matter.

Fake news

The body heat affect is very small, but consider those people all use energy, they need to heat and light their homes, they need to cook, and many use vehicles for transport, that produces quite a lot of heat.

No

Not only is it small, you have to think where body heat ultimately comes from: Food. Food comes from photosynthesis. Solar energy was absorbed by the corn, rice, and other plants you eat (or which are eaten by the animals you eat) -- this solar energy would have otherwise hit the ground and turned to heat immediately. Instead, the plant intercepted it and turned it into chemical energy. We digest that chemical energy and much of it is then released as heat by our cells. So the heat emitted by your body is just "paying back" what would have otherwise been added to the planet a few weeks prior, making the net effect virtually zero.

No. Human body heat is simply too small to have any noticeable effect.

You mean "contribute" not "attribute".

It's plausible but there aren't enough people to make a discernible difference. You probably have higher temperatures in dense cities. I would think probably buildings, roads and concrete contribute more though.

Edit- If you're saying that then you're saying it is the only or primary cause which is obviously incorrect. It's probably best to just not use words if you don't understand them.

Example:

GW is ATTributed to co2 emissions however dense populations are a CONtributing factor

Could increased population of the planet possibly attribute to the effects of global warming?

Some people, like Pennsylvanian Republican State Senator Scott Wagner, has stated that heat from our bodies causes global warming. This clearly is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of experts agree that climate change is happening and humans are causing it largely through producing carbon dioxide that exacerbates the Earth’s greenhouse effect. So more people might lead to more fossil fuel burning and that does increase global warming.

And we have yet another idiot who doesn't now the definition of liberal.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation. (I am a liberal and generally I like it when I am proven wrong, especially if it was AGW.)

And global warming has decreased? No, 2016 is still the warmest year on record, in fairness that was an El Nino year and the average global surface temperature this year and subsequent years is expected to be cooler. Measurements by satellites show that the earth is still receiving more heat than it is loosing. The heat has to go somewhere and scientist think that the oceans are absorbing this heat.

Edit:

"Today the word "liberal" is synonymous with authoritarian socialist and is essentially the opposite of what you described."

That might be YOUR definition, encyclopedias have a different definition.

Authoritarian socialism refers to a collection of political-economic systems describing themselves as socialist and rejecting the liberal democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus and freedom of expression.

If you have a problem with Authoritarian socialism (as I do) use that term and don't lump them in with liberals like myself.

Even as a foreman I used to make a list of jobs that needed to be done, and allocated a number of hours against those jobs. When you were done with your task, you simply picked another one from the list. Worked wonderful, Jobs got done properly, in time and I didn't have to manage you.

"You misspelled libertarian."

Libertarian is an extreme form of liberalism.

Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions.

I looked at libertarians like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, I like to think I understand their arguments. I wish there was another way than law, to get people to stop harming others in the name of profit. I hope most people wouldn't harm others, but sadly the current situation is that too many of those people elbow their way to the top.

People would call me a liberal and while I subscribe to the definition of liberalism I provided, if you want to put me in a box, a more accurate label would be libertarian socialist.

Edit:

"Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron, because it attributes too much trust to the government to be libertarian."

Like I said "Libertarian is an extreme form of liberalism"

"Do you know how inefficient govt social programs are?"

As a freelancer I work in both the private and public sector and I had interactions with cleaning staff as well as upper management. I have seen inefficiencies in both sectors. One of the biggest sectors, health care, tax funded health care has better outcomes and at lower costs! (this is easily verifiable without me having to disclose confidential information.) And while Obamacare was an improvement, I opposed it on the grounds that it was still extremely inefficient.

"Want to double your social security benefits?"

No, I have plenty. Even if I didn't I wouldn't trust you with my money because I know nothing about you. Besides Social Security's consistent, risk-free and inflation-adjusted returns would be very tough to beat.

Edit.

"That's the way the word is used today. Encyclopedias are frequently out of date."

I understand that this is not how YOU use it, so explain which of those parts do liberals today generally do NOT subscribe to?

1) Freedom of speech?

2) Freedom of the press?

3) Freedom of religion?

4) Free markets?

5) Civil rights?

6) Democratic societies?

7) Secular governments?

8) Gender equality?

9) International cooperation?

Personally, I subscribe to all of those, but only up to a point. The reason I do not take it to the extreme is because people will abuse their freedom when there is money to be made. Surely we can agree that even free markets need contract law in addition to criminal law and environmental law. We probably disagree where we stop legislating.

scientist proved that global warming has degreased just recently. Liberals go pissed when the scientist proved them wrong.