[Reeses]

That's a definite warming trend, which is probably due in part to human influences.

I don't get why it matters human or not. The much bigger question is if this is a good thing or bad thing. At this slow rate a warming should be a net good thing for the next 400 years, creating more food and less deaths from cold. We really don't need to worry about 400 years from now since there won't be any oil left to burn. We'll be on fusion by then and will be able to set the worlds temperature at anything we want. They are going to have a good laugh at all our worry 400 years from now.

[jpl]

I don't get why it matters human or not.

Even if we assume that the thesis is correct that this miniscule trend is "probably due in part to human influences" (a thesis which I personally am not ready to grant yet), then the relevant question is HOW MUCH of it is due to human influences. 90 percent? 50 percent? 2.1 percent? If the answer is closest to the last, then anything we could possibly do would have such a negligible influence on temperature change that it wouldn't justify spending even one more cent to address the issue.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No one knows if it's good or bad. Would turning Iowa into a desert be good or bad? Would turning Siberia into cropland good or bad? Of course, warming could lead to more clouds, more rain, and turn Iowa into a swamp or there could be increased snow and trigger an ice age. (Ice ages seem to start with excess snow in places like Canada; the snow doesn't melt during the summer so the next year's snow is piled up again; the increased albedo from the snow lowers local temperatures so even more snow can fall.)

About the only thing really known is that there would be more violent storms (more energy in the atmosphere.)