Except CO2 from fossil fuels aren't even the largest contribution to "greenhouse gasses" that can be attributed to humans.

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've linked a short well made video below which addresses your arguments. TLDW Just because man's emissions are relatively small in comparison to the over all natural emissions does not mean they don't affect things.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Youtube is blocked at work, but my understanding was that the mass farming of cattle and the methane they produce was as impactful as the CO2 attributed to fossil fuels in terms of increasing greenhouse gasses.

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)

Can we please not have arguments via video? Surely if the arguments are good there is a write up somewhere.

Here is a very good presentation of CO2 measurement values:

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.

a - why not?

b - click the "show more" button. The text underneath the video is littered with references.

Seems to be the largest to me, most increased radiative forcing is due to co2, and most co2 is from the energy sector, which is mostly fossil fuels. Which matches up with the change the isotope ratios.