"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), are responsible for most of the climate change currently being observed."

-- The National Academy of Science, our association of greatest scientists,

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...

The major science academies of the world, speaking together for all scientists in the world have called the human contribution "indisputable".

http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...

The leaked version of the IPCC report due out later this year indicates it will conclude it is almost certain. In 2007 they concluded it was at least 90% certain.

Those who claim there is not a consensus are just making that up. They have no basis for such a silly claim.

The National Academy of Science is the most credible science academy on earth.

'Consensus' is the end of science. Think about it! Where would science be if there were not pioneers who would question whatever is accepted? If no one had questioned and examined, we would still think, as was the consensus in the dark ages, that frogs came from flies!

Yes, there are a good many more scientists who think human factors may contribute to warming. But the groups are not static. Some who once thought it likely, have, upon further investigation, decided against the theory that man's influences are greater than nature.

But if climate change is opposed, please show me a period ever in history when the climate DID NOT change! If it has become warmer since the cold years of the 1880s when temperature records began, and people are living longer now, perhaps we should conclude that the change is beneficial!

Unfortunately, the climatologists have a direct conflict of interest on this. Not only is AGW the money tree for that field currently, but it is likely to be career suicide to buck the other members of that field. Whether the consensus is meaningful is not clear.

Another thing that is not clear is whether you can know what the consensus is without a doctorate in climatology. We were once told it was science that man was causing a new ice age with his wanton industrial prosperity. Now we are told it will end in an overheated great drought. That earlier stuff was unrepresentative don'cha know. We weren't told that then though, now were we, hm?

Besides:

"If man-made global warming was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...

A solution both practical and inexpensive.*

Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.

If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

--------------------------------------...

Optional section:

*Amazingly, there have been those that have failed to read the link before objecting:

1) The entire point was that the oceans are iron deficient relative to other nutrients. Phosphorus, for example, is present but underutilized.

2) "…It might not work…" It is grounded on experimental findings and direct observation of a more solid nature than man-made global warming itself. Man-made global warming is based on inferences from extremely limited hard data. That the oceans respond to iron fertilization is directly demonstrable. It is a commonplace that vast amounts of microscopic plants sink to the bottom in quite effective sequestration.

Furthermore, source reduction is a 100% certain failure because the developing world simply will not follow carbon reductions unless they are less expensive than unrestricted use of fossil fuels. All that will happen, if source reduction is followed, is that the developed world will become impoverished and the major concentration of environmental concern will make itself irrelevant save as a bad example.

3) Yes, it is being investigated - slowly. Some of the original studies date back to 1993. For a fraction of the money and time wasted on source reduction, all aspects of the issue could have long since been concluded. On a practical level, since iron fertilization has been observed as a natural process (volcanoes, wind blown dust and upwellings, etc.), the insistence on more 'studies' borders on delay tactics. The fact that man-made global warming advocates flee from it like vampires from sunlight is to me a proof of their bad faith, that man-made global warming is a convenient propaganda tool to get them what they want politically."

The vast majority of scientists who study the matter think the human generated greenhouse gasses are warming the planet.

Here is video series by a scientific journalist from the UK that goes into detail on what scientists have to say in peer reviewed journals.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA...

Use of fossil fuel to power industries as well as vehicles has greatly contributed to the concentration of greenhouse gases. There is also a significant amount of greenhouse gases that are produced by garbage and industrial waste dumps.

More you got here: http://www.qwhatis.com/what-is-global-wa...

From what I understand not a single scientist denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C cooler and that burning fossil fuels has resulted in a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.

95% of all climatologist believe the current acceleration of global warming is man made and the majority of the world's climate organizations are in agreement.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...

They just don't believe in climate change they are actively involved in it Like Queensland University .

This video sates at 2.30 min that the university is carrying out weather modification trials so they know what's really going on with the extreme weather that just impacted the east coast of Australia.