Is climate change causes primarily by human beings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Human activities—especially the burning of fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases—are the primary cause of the observed global warming of the past century, a conclusion affirmed repeatedly by major scientific assessments and agencies [1] [2]. Independent reviews of the peer‑reviewed literature and global surveys of scientists find overwhelming agreement—commonly reported around 97% or higher—that recent warming is anthropogenic [3] [4].
1. The weight of the evidence
Multiple lines of independent evidence—instrumental temperature records, ice cores, tree rings, ocean observations and attribution studies—show Earth has warmed rapidly in recent decades and that greenhouse gases from human activity explain that warming in ways natural drivers cannot, a conclusion summarized by the IPCC and reiterated by NASA and the U.S. National Academies [1] [2] [5]. NASA notes that current rates of warming are unprecedented in the last 10,000 years and that carbon dioxide from human activities is rising far faster than natural post‑glacial changes, supporting the attribution to human emissions [1].
2. Scientific consensus is not a popularity contest but a measurement
Multiple independent efforts to quantify scientific agreement—analyses of thousands of peer‑reviewed papers, surveys of climate experts, and meta‑reviews—consistently find that between roughly 90% and over 99% of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming, with several widely cited studies reporting figures near 97% or greater [4] [3] [6]. Major scientific bodies and national academies likewise state that human influence is the dominant cause of warming since the mid‑20th century [2] [5].
3. The mechanisms: why greenhouse gases point to human causes
Physics and observations link greenhouse‑gas increases to warming: measurements show rising atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases consistent with fossil‑fuel combustion, and climate models and detection‑and‑attribution studies demonstrate that natural forcings like solar variability and volcanoes cannot account for the observed pattern of warming, whereas greenhouse‑gas forcing can [1] [5]. Scientific statements emphasize that human emissions have moved from theoretical concern to established fact in successive IPCC and national assessments [1] [7].
4. Uncertainties are about details, not the overall human role
The scientific debate today centers on magnitudes, regional impacts, timing, and feedbacks—how fast particular regions will change, how extremes will shift, and what the precise socioeconomic outcomes will be—rather than on whether humans are the primary driver; assessments repeatedly stress that uncertainty in outcomes is a feature of complex systems and does not undermine the core finding of anthropogenic causation [1] [8]. National Academies and recent reviews frame remaining scientific work as refining projections and quantifying impacts on health and welfare, not disputing human responsibility [5].
5. Dissent, misinformation and vested interests
A tiny minority of scientists and some organizations—often linked historically to extractive industries—have promoted doubt or non‑committal positions, and communication research shows that public underestimation of scientific consensus persists and can be exploited to delay policy [3] [9]. Studies and news outlets cited here document both the extreme level of professional agreement and the effectiveness of “consensus messaging” in correcting public misperceptions, suggesting that campaigns to minimize consensus are as much political and economic as scientific [9] [10].
6. Bottom line
Given the convergent evidence from observations, physical understanding, attribution studies, major scientific assessments and overwhelming agreement within the climate science community, the best available science concludes that climate change observed over the past century is caused primarily by human activities—most notably the burning of oil, gas and coal—while research continues to sharpen projections of regional impacts and extremes [2] [1] [4]. Alternative explanations that rely on natural forcings have not been shown to account for the observed patterns and rates of change in the peer‑reviewed literature and formal assessments cited above [5] [7].