One additional point on the human causation: the burden of scientific proof seemingly required for action among many conservative climate contrarians is much higher than in other less politicized areas of science, areas where the alleged economic consequences of reform are not as much of a factor. There is no doubt that the conflict is political, not scientific.

Have I written enough for everyone to find at least one thing with which to agree/disagree?

the tiny minority who doubt humans are causing it is more than zero. That still doesn t make it a serious debate in scientific circles.

*sigh*
I didn’t say there was doubt about humans causing increased warming. I said there was conflict concerning the degree of influence.
From the IPCC Climate Change 2001 report (which I’ve read thoroughly many times):

The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.

Identifying human-induced climate change requires two steps. First it must be demonstrated that an observed climate change is unusual in a statistical sense. This is the detection problem. For this to be successful one has to know quantitatively how climate varies naturally. Although estimates have improved since the SAR, there is still considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of this natural climate variability. The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that  the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system .

Having detected a climatic change, the most likely cause of that change has to be established. This is the attribution problem. Can one attribute the detected change to human activities, or could it also be due to natural causes? Also attribution is a statistical process. Neither detection nor attribution can ever be  certain , but only probable in a statistical sense. The attribution problem has been addressed by comparing the temporal and spatial patterns of the observed temperature increase with model calculations based on anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols, on the assumption that these patterns carry a fingerprint of their cause. In this way the SAR found that  there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record . Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion.

Scientists agree that the current climate change is not “entirely” natural, but there is debate over how much influence human activity contributes.

Since exactly zero scientists doubt there is warming going on, then the tiny minority who doubt humans are causing it is more than zero. That still doesn’t make it a serious debate in scientific circles.

I’m reading exactly what you wrote. You’re citing the fact that the record was 125 years old and europe is colder will cast doubt on whether humans cause warming. I’ll reiterate, if you think the scientists have not taken this into account, you should tell them.

Just because we have one extremely warm month doesn’t prove or disprove global warming. I think that’s all he was trying to say. It’s sad to see such reactionary comments coming from people who obviously take pride in the idea that they are looking at all the “facts”.

How many cars were there 125 years ago? How many factories? How many train tracks? How many nuclear explosions had taken place?

…125 years ago, how many people were there? That’s one number that has been breaking records year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

But that usually doesn t stop know-nothings from thinking that they ve figured something out that the scientists just weren t aware of.

Why don’t you point out where I demonstrate a “know-nothing” comment? I am very aware of the current scientific knowledge about global climate change; I teach about it all year long.
What I have I posted that is in error?
Which climatologists are blaming a warm January in the US on “global warming”?
MJB, you demonstrate a typical liberal reactionary: You read more into my post than what I said based on my unwillingness to uncritically accept a general statement about global warming. There is evidence in many climatological areas that demonstrate we are experiencing global climate change. There is more debate among climatologists, however, about the degree of human influence compared to natural fluctuations.

I suppose ad hominem attacks only surface when you disagree with the message rather than the messenger.

JG – are you honestly positing that there is no such thing as global warming

Well, I would refer to it more properly as global climate change. But, no, I am not saying there is no such thing as global warming.

I am saying that pointing to a 125 year record that was just broken for the US does not demonstrate “global warming.” Can you point to any climatologist that is pointing to January as evidence of global warming?

[JG - are you honestly positing that] the current warm trend is merely an anomaly?

Warm for whom?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/01/24/europe.cold.ap/

I d put JWG in that camp of competency.

Please be serious. Limbaugh is a scientific boob. How many of you have read and understood the various IPCC climate analyses? The only claim I made in this thread is that you can’t point to this January in the US as evidence of “global warming” when:
1) The record was from 125 years ago demonstrating that the Earth naturally cycles through trends, and
2) Europe is experiencing record low temperatures at the same time.

Your talking science to people that just don’t believe in it. They’ve got a “pre-enlightenment” mentality and any appeal to logic just causes them to spew even more hot air, thus warming the globe even further.

“I sense faith-based resume verification.”