By the way, you left out one of the most important indicators of man's influence on the environment - ocean acidification. I don't think many realize how big an impact excess CO2 has had on the acidity of the ocean - see for example this link or do a google search on ocean acidification. The impact that ocean acidification can (and likely will) have on the shellfish industry and other animals in the ocean is large. The fact of the matter is that the ocean pH is decreasing at much faster rates than has happened at any time in the past many millions of years and the pH rise started when man started burning lots of fossil fuels. The rate of decrease is highly correlated with our rate of dumping CO2 into the air and the consensus scientific opinion is that man's fossil fuel use is responsible for this. Of course the internet makes it easy to find the occasional apparent "expert" who will claim otherwise, but make no mistake about it, if you talk to the vast majority of those with direct experience in the field, they will tell you there is little doubt that our own CO2 emissions are responsible for this rapid decrease in ocean pH.jkswor":1mz3vnsp said:
The same is true when it comes to the average temperature on the earth. E.g. the RATE of change is much faster than what is estimated from various records of temperature (ice core data, data from living and fossilized trees etc). Again the vast majority of those will knowledge and experience in the field will tell you that there is little doubt that man made CO2 emissions are likely the cause of this temperature increase. What no one can predict with high accuracy is how much worse things will get, how fast that will happen, short term temperatures rises/decreases etc. Again it's easy to find apparent "experts" who will argue otherwise but the scientific consensus is that we can and are having an impact on climate with CO2 emissions. Both the left and the right wing have over sensationalized the potential impacts, the inevitable errors that occur in some models and the occasional short term decrease in temperature or decrease in rate.
But for now I'll tend to believe the overall scientific consensus that was developed by the best experts in the field (such as the reports and statements developed by the national academy of sciences) way more than I'd believe anything from the Heartland Institute (a clearly political organization), skeptical science.com (a web site by a bunch of people with limited experience in science - e.g. mostly bachelors degrees and very limited peer reviewed science), Forbes (a magazine that is beholden to large corporations and is owned by Republican Steve Forbes) or the AP Roundtable (another political organization). In fact if one looks at the AProundtable links with any real degree of inquiry, you'll find that their claim that "most scientists do not believe that human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate" to be complete hogwash. They cite as evidence of this claim as petition signed by 17,000 "scientists". Go find that petition, look at the typical signatory and you'll find very few actual scientists with degrees relevant to climate science or with peer reviewed research in climate science. What you will find are M.D.'s, chemical engineers etc.
As I stated on another recent thread, if I want good advice on my Honda Boat engines, I go to a marine mechanic with direct experience on Honda. I don't go to a Honda car mechanic (although he may have some relevant knowledge), I don't go to a climate scientists and I don't go to a carpenter. I go to people who REALLY know about Honda marine engines. When I want a good understanding of climate science I go to sources put together by the best climate scientists in the world - such as those at the National Academy of Science. I can also independently judge the quality of a climate scientist by a number of factors including: how much experience he or she has in the field, how many peer review publications they have, where they obtained their degree, how often others site their research etc. When I talk to people who REALLY understand the entire collection of relevant data and models, I get a consensus opinion that is fairly well represented by the NAS reports.
