Circumstantial yes. While the facts are true, it implies but not specify that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a cause of the warming.
''Circumstantial'' and ''balance of probability'' is not rigorous proof and a scientific community should not accept such flimsy conclusions, unless they are going back to pre-Enlightenment dogma. The methodology of Karl Popper in using the falsification process to challenge scientific theory would throw out any of the IPCC ethos.
Fact remains is that global temperatures are not rising. That information comes from within the IPCC itself.
The issue we have here is finding a true "independent" study. I'm sure on about every study someone received a grant from someone and there are often political ties. My understanding though is that the majority view among scientists is that the warming is man induced.
Where does your understanding come from? Are you up to date with the most recent studies?
Sorry for the comments and lumping you together - but their is a reasonably numerous group in the republican/tea party that has many beliefs not at all backed by and often against science. The age of the Earth and Evolution are two of these. Osama Bin Laden hiding in a basement of the White House is another
Another issue, a bill that was passed in a strong republican state that I have mentioned on another thread allows discrimination if the party feels there religion states they should discriminate, a rather stupid law that was not well thought out.
I am not based in the United States, I live in Great Britain. Most of the recent studies on the subject have been evaluated by Roger Helmer, who is a member of the European Parliament, who has demonstrated that the 15,000 academic reports which the IPCC classifies as supporting ''global warming'' are actually neutral on the subject, due to lack of sufficient evidence that would constitute proof. Simply because these articles refer to ''global warming'' they are automatically assumed to support the theory. Even articles questioning the concept, simply because they mention it, are taken to agree with ''global warming.'' Roger has stated that the number of climate scientists who actively promote ''global warming'' constitute about one tenth of one per cent of the alleged membership of the IPCC. There are a substantial number of scientists in the IPCC who actively disagree with ''global warming'' whose views are suppressed by their peers, some have had to take legal action or threatened to have legal action to get their names removed from reports promoting ''global warming.''
You may be shocked how many there are that actually believe these things. I work with many that do. It's these types that it can be seen from polls and the passage of stupid legislation that constitute a good portion of the republican base. I think this "base" gets even higher representation within the tea party. Heck, I don't just think it, it's pretty obvious based on polling data.
My fault for assuming you to have similar beliefs as much of the republican/conservative/tea party base, though many in this "base" have some irrational views, many conflicting with science.
I repeat, I am not in the United States. I am well aware of these views you mention.
For the record I am an atheist, I think the universe is based on the laws of physics and chemistry and not creationism. Earth's atmosphere is in a constant state of microclimatic change, for which the biggest single influence is the Sun. Man's influence is very small and localised, possibly the biggest single influence there is the water extraction from rivers that has contributed to the drying up of the Aral Sea.
Finally I ask you to consider one scientific question. Earth has an atmosphere where carbon dioxide comprises less than one half of one per cent. The planet Mars has an atmosphere that is 97% carbon dioxide. So why isn't Mars burning up? Its temperatures are way below freezing point - if carbon dioxide is such a greenhouse gas Mars should be a warm planet, even allowing for the thinner atmosphere and Mars being further away from the Sun.
And consider the planets Jupiter and Saturn - they have vast quantities of methane in their atmospheres, a gas that stores heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide. Yet despite the stupendous gravity and thickness of atmospheres on these two planets, their temperatures are hundreds of degrees below freezing.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.