Denying human contribution to global warming is like denying the laws of physics

I think this article misses the point a bit (for the record - I do believe that humans are contributing to global warming).

The article basically relies on listing a load of bad sounding things as evidence of our effect. Yes, we have hellish smoke stacks. But the fact that they are ugly and offensive to environmentalists doesn't mean they are contributing to climate change. Yes, X billion tonnes of CO2 sounds bad - it's a big number! Yes, it's fairly incontrovertible that those X billions tonnes of CO2 will cause the planet to warm up. What is debatable is how much warming they will cause. Is it even an observable effect compared to the natural cycle?

Maybe this is the kind of article needed to persuade the non-technical skeptics, but as a technical non-skeptic, I didn't find it very convincing.