Climate change is inevitable. It's happened before many times in the history of the earth, and will happen again. The behaviour of man and it's resulting emissions are largely agreed to have been impactful on the rate of change.
However, I've seen statisticians and scientists poking rational holes in research (and pilloried for daring to do so by the green lobby). So I default to my standard position, which is that both sides are a bit wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll stay here for a while, it's comfortable.
I implore you, (as you seem a reasonable fellow who values science) to give it a watch and see if you still feel the same way. I'm willing to watch or read any counter argument you care to link if you will do me the same courtesy.
Some googling suggests I am wrong on that though as they claim agriculture is responsible for just 18% of the greenhouse gas (of course one gets wildly differing values depending where you look).
My comment wasn't meant to imply that fossil fuels/CO2 isn't relevant, but it's not the whole story. I was clearly wrong as to the extent of agricultural impact :)
As for the rest of it, I don't deny climate change. I don't pretend that humans have no impact the rate of change. I get uncomfortable with the way it's a "cause", by the way a statistician who questions methodology is attacked not answered etc etc. It makes me doubt the numbers, not the underlying principles (which are experimentally demonstrable)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I'm still looking for a non-movie version that shows the whole curve we have (not just the direct measurements).
edit: forgot the link
Some more good writeups: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://climatechange.procon.org/
If anyone has questions - I study this stuff.
b - click the "show more" button. The text underneath the video is littered with references.
Your reaction seems to be anger-fueled climate change hate that stops you from thinking in a rational, open minded way.
Edit: Gender Error
Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding.
We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial.
(corrected typo)
Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water:
The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled their water to 50 degrees. "They all went from falling apart, having their viscera hanging out, to pretty healthy in a day," she says. "I came back, and they were like, ready for the cover of Vogue. They were perfect." So temperature may play a role in the animals’ ability to recover as well.
The north Pacific basin, on average, has warmed by about half a degree centigrade from 1955 to 2013, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "That’s kind of a scary number," says Andy Allegra, a NOAA data specialist. "It’s very large."
You don't have to be a genius to see the climate is changing.
Now for the root cause, I don't know, but human pollution is certainly not helping.