The only disagreement, sadly enough, involves emotions & politics, driven primarily by large extractive industries and their footsoldiers willing to protect the status quo at any cost. Including the pending demise of human civilization. Read:

1. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. (NOAA)

2. Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century. (NASA)

3. Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. (NOAA)

4. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). (NOAA)

In fact, while you’re sitting back and relaxing, why not go back and read (I know it will be tough for someone of your “apparent level of knowledge.”) posts #13 and 14.

Then get back to us on exactly how your comments furthered the conversation.

You meet none of your own standards.

Therefore you are a drag on civil discourse.

And, if you do not like my choice of words, talk to Mr. Laitres, it’s nearly verbatim from one of his unnecessary assaults on other posters.

It is apparent that he is in possession of neither.

Given the frequency and shallowness of his posts, one can readily conclude that, like most in their situation, h believes the number of sounds they utter, or the number of words he uses, makes him appear “intelligent.”

Actually, it does the exact opposite, much as one would not consider the “babbling” of an infant “words of wisdom.”

It is most frequently those lacking in knowledge and understanding who use the most words, perhaps to cover the absence of both.

““A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.””

““The supposed ‘global cooling’ consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.”

““…global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus…”.”

“the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong ”

“toaaronuu
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am PM This User Report this comment

Yeah, it shows up differently on the wiki, but still, the consensus is overwhelming.”

“The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.”

“The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.”

—- I’m somewhat at a loss here, so I need help.

“Consensus” is the same as proven scientific fact?

Now I know that’s only a minor little detail, but my world is surrounded with minor little details.

So I really do need an honest, concise non-refutable answer on this question.

Thanks in advance.

Willis

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”