If anyone can show me a link with facts/data linking humans to global warming, I will convinced that global warming is man-made.

Such a link does NOT exist. There are ideas and concepts there is even some evidence. However there is NO proof. This is why so many of us argue against it with such vigor.

This question is often posed as an are they/aren't they question and that always provokes a riot.

In my opinion, it would be much better to ask how much of the current warming is caused by man. At least that would get people thinking. I know of no climate scientist who claims that it is all man-made.

The other relevant question is how did it warm (and cool) before mankind arrived?

I'm not aware of a link that demonstrates the level of proof that you are seeking. However, we can apply the same standards of proof that are applied to demonstrate a satisfactory level of?proof of the existence of God?to...for example, creationists and believers in?Intelligent Design. Here are some links to the standard(s) of proof that are applied to that:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientif...

Here is a second link from the same site that gets a little more specific:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of...

In addition to the evidence presented later in the essay, the link states in its opening paragraph: "...consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer.The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It's simply cause and effect."

If you google 'proof of God' you will find dozens of links that purport to present proof of God, in most cases considered irrefutable and using logic that is contradicted-in some cases by the same people-by the standard of proof demanded regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, the standard used as proof for Intelligent Design which is used to demand teaching this subject in schools vs. evolution and other scientific theories, if applied to Climate Science, would objectively demand thatAGW?be taught in science classes as well. However, this is not the case.

From the standpoint of skepticism, we each have the right to be skeptical about whatever issue we have an interest in; however, in the example of belief in God vs. empirical proof of AGW, it is difficult to rationalize religious faith then turning around and demanding absolute proof of AGW. I'm not saying this is what you are doing, BTW, I am simply looking at what we may consider satisfactory proof of one issue compared to another issue and considering what is subjective vs. objective.

From my point of view (as a skeptic) I believe the scientific theory behind AGW is solid enough but the outcomes and range of prediction are too uncertain to make long range efforts solely to mitigate something we do not fully understand, so I am skeptical of what is being debated politically on both sides of the argument, especially when someone says they know absolutely what the situation is and what we should do about it, whether it is to throw money at a problem with uncertain outcomes or that it is not a problem at all. No one knows at this point, and anyone who claims to know absolutely is a as much a fool as someone who thinks they know what happens after we die.?

AGW has been described as a religion by many...one question that raises, though, is what does that description say about religion?

EDIT: The point of bringing up religion is using an example of standard of proof compared to what is demanded by the asker. It's apparently rather sophisticated conceptually for some people but is germane to the question in terms of an answer; there is no 'proof' that I am aware of that humans are causing global warming, but what is the person really asking? What standard of proof is satisfactory to him? It is a rhetorical question that I am just providing a reference point to. Let's apply the standard of the link 'proving' the existence of God, and substitute the warming of the past:?

"The presence of past warming proves the existence of the same reasons for warming today. It's simply cause and effect."

Is this an objective or subjective standard? Is it factual? Does it prove that mankind is not influencing climate as has been stated many times in this category? There is no proof or disproof, the absolutism practiced here so often is illogical, as are the proofs or disproofs of the existence of God. The foundation of skepticism is political and economic, not scientific outside of the scientific community, and that is rooted in outcomes that are in the (relatively) distant future. That's why the standard of proof being demanded is important and subjective, and why it produces an impasse, and how this issue relates to the 'proof' of the existence of God that is so elusive.

Start with the National Academy of Science. They have provided both a booklet and a series of videos that update you with what scientists know about climate change. You can get to either here.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...

You can also go to the IPCC Assessments of research; the last one included all research available through 2006, the new one is due next year and will reflect the more current research.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

You can also get a summary of the IPCC basis here, this is a 9-page pdf of an article that ran in ScientificAmerican back in 2007.

http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tsa...

I can only show good evidence that it is NOT man-made.

We know that man-made Global Warming does not exist because it's advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:

1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:

3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.

4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.

5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2012 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.

6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.

7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)

8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.

9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.

See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.

Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...

Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...

35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...

Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...

Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...

Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...

For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:

The Great Global Warming Swindle