There are all sorts of people...
...that object to climate change theory, ranging from complete denial (it isn’t happening, it couldn’t happen, it’s all a conspiracy…) to general scepticism (I’ve not not seen any convincing evidence, and what about x what about y…). You seem to be a reasonable enough fella, so I’m assuming that you would respond to evidence. My personal interest in climate change is as someone who is researching (PhD student) the effect of climate change on the living world – on forest ecosystems. I make no claims to being a climate scientist, but I have more than a passing interest. Firstly – the effect on the living world is large, well-documented and completely consistent with what the climate scientists are saying. I’d happily point you to some reading on this topic, but I think you’re probably more interested in the climate science part. Secondly, there is a constant stream of scientific investigation into climate, and almost all of it fits easily into the story of human-induced climate change that you disbelieve. There are parts that are poorly understood – but mostly this relates to questions such as how much and for how long (i.e. feebacks from water vapour, release of carbon stored in the tundra etc.) rather than the fundamental question of whether it is happening or not. You’ll probably find that questions that you have have already been answered. A good place to start looking is the website www.skepticalscience.com, they take the common sceptic talking points (many of which I’ve seen on this board already, for example the high CO2 in the Ordovician period) and present the actual evidence surrounding the topic. You’ve probably heard bad things about the IPCC on sceptic websites, but their publications remain the best synthesis of all of the evidence. That’s their purpose, they don’t do any research themselves, they exist to collate all of the evidence from scientists around the world on the topic of climate change. They even include the evidence that casts doubt on the consensus, there just isn’t very much of it. As well as technical reports, they also publish summaries that are readable by a lay audience. If you are seriously sceptical (i.e. have a questioning mind and are prepared to evaluate the evidence for yourself rather than simply echoing the latest contrarian talking points) then you should read these sources.
(BellaBella, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 13:04, 1 reply)

I like this,
and I'd like to hear what you think about what I said up there ^^ about 5000 volcanoes.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 14:03, closed)

I don't know about your...
...numbers, but sure we go through a load of energy. There is a element of that in raising the ambient temperature in urban areas - the urban heat island effect. Although I think that the urban heat island effect is mostly due to altering the environment (buildings, roads etc) rather than as a result of generating extra heat. Truthfully, it's not something that I know a lot about.
(BellaBella, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 16:44, closed)

"Urban heat island" was a useful lead, thanks.
Check this out:
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019852.shtml
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 16:59, closed)

Have you read it?
Or just read the abstract? If you read the whole paper, what did you find particularly convincing about it? If you didn't read it, then you need to be aware that just reading the abstract (1 paragraph summary) doesnt give you the context, the caveats, the confidence. It's really impossible to evaluate a piece of work by that alone. I could add it to my to read pile, but it would be at the bottom of a foot high pile of scientific papers. One thing I can tell at at glance though is that only 9 people have cited it in the 7 years since it was published, meaning that not many of their peers were interested in the work. And I know that modelling anthropogenic heat release in urban environments is really tricky, it's hard to have any real confidence in the results. In short, I'd be cautious about reading too much into this.
(BellaBella, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:26, closed)

I'd read it but you need a login to access it,
I'm often frustrated by this kind of thing.

I just thought it was interesting, I'm not going to be interviewed on the news or anything. Elsewhere I've discovered that direct heating from human energy use accounts for about 1% of global warming. So it's accepted that the effect is there, albeit "only 1%" as they put it, but how long before our energy use increases by a hundred-fold?
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:22, closed)