It is easy to understand that humans are adding heat to the earth. We burn coal, oil, natural gas, and the combustion creates heat. Hard to build a cold fire.
Are you suggesting that the heat itself produced from fossil fuels is having an effect on global temperatures?
And we can show how greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane insulate.
Yes but it's only one variable of many variables, the total effect is unknown.
The headline findings of the fourth IPCC assessment were:
This would be the same organization that published the hockey stick. yes? The same organization that has had to retract many things in these reports, yes? This would be same organization that has been widely criticized both internally and externally for for the inordinate way in which they have been compiled outside of the typical scientific process? David the IPCC is political organization, it's not a scientific one. For example the head of the IPCC specialty is economics and soft porn novelists on the side who just happens to have vast investments in many companies that would benefit from climate change legislation.
Wikipedia is written by everyone, not just anti-capitalists.
Interesting you have mentioned Wikipedia as a reliable source.......
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... 78af9cb409
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known -Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
In case you're interested Connolley was banned by Wikipedia eventually but the damage was done at that point.
You're going to have to come up with something more that the IPCC and Wikipedia to back up your claim 97 to 98% of scientists in the climate field agree humans are causing warming.
What is the benefit in believing that humans have had nothing to do with what is happening on this planet? I'm curious.
I don't believe we are or aren't, there simply isn't enough evidence to fully support either position.