Readers, readers, readers: I'm agonizing over and debating my thoughts.
What I have argued and debated in the past is that industrial activity —
anthropogenic activity — has consequences, e.g. the putting of large
amounts of carbon-based materials into the environment.
Whether that causes "global warming" I don't know, and I submit can't be proven given the paucity of the database — how can you prove an underlying climatic cycle that may be hundreds or thousands of years long in periodicity with just about 100 years or so of truly detailed and reliable data? And, once you understand that base cycle, you still have to prove that there is a causal connection — not a spurious correlation — between any observed deviation and the base cycle.
So, no ... I don't agree that there is a demonstrable/provable "anthropogenic component of global warming." What there is, however, is a change in the chemistry of the world's oceans due to its service as a carbon sink for the planet. I truly don't know if that's changed the weather, or, if so, how and how much it has done so.
Those who say they know are engaging in faith-based statements, not science as I was taught it. In fact, to make a stronger statement, it is pretty much infeasible to say anything "scientifically" about cosmology — the origin, structure and space-time relationships of the universe — as it is a single-run system. Remember, a science experiment is demonstrable, repeatable and measurable. How do you do that with the origin of the universe? That's why things like the Big Bang Theory are just that — theories. Things like gravity and aspects of thermodynamics can be termed laws. We can run experiments in gravity and thermodynamics — repeatable and measurable ones — and when we observe things that are invariant, we can call them laws: law of gravity, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc.
Now, given you now know what I really think, whether it is connected with global warming or not, carbon-based pollution is just that — pollution. I'm anti-pollution, so I would support reasonable, commensurate steps to combat carbon-based pollution. And, yes, in addition to being pro-tree, I am also pro-children. In fact, I'm so "pro-children" that I think they shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed in their mothers' wombs, but that's a different argument.