One degree Celsius is quite significant...no matter what the 'provable' cause.

I'm not sure what you WOULD consider as 'evidence', as we can't exactly hold up a thermometer and watch it rise as a new power plant starts up... but we CAN measure fairly accurately the effects of various chemical reactions and plot the changes in the atmosphere as these occur...and then measure statistical rises in temperature at various points and see correlations. It seems to me that there are serious indicators that there are probably causal connections involved. Just how long should we wait before taking the cautious approach and trying to limit the behavior that SEEMS to be related to climate change? There IS a concept called "err on the side of caution", and IF we adopted it, various conditions would be better anyway! Less pollution, less strip mining, fewer men dying in coal mines....etc.
   All that would really change is certain short-term economic interests...but we KNOW that means fewer millions for certain corporate interests.

   For many years both makers and users of tobacco products tried to hide from growing evidence that tobacco was dangerous! Think of the lives that could have been saved if common sense had been applied to THAT debate! WHY do so many automatically resist good circumstantial evidence that Global Climate Change is partially fueled by human activity?

   Why does the song by Pete Seeger "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" keep running thru my head?