The conclusion that global warming is anthrogenic has been accepted by the national academies of science of all the major industrialized countries, as well as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy see footnotes 13-20.
If that is not “the smallest little bit of proof to you” that a consensus exists—OK, you’re certainly entitled to an opinion.
As to me being a mental midget with my head up my ass, for keeping an open mind, and being concerned about what may be happening to the climate, I guess you are entitled to that opinion to.
Your post, bereft of anything constructive, and abusive in its tone, reminds me of something you might see on DU. Don’t you see the irony of complaining about how climate skeptics are shouted down or marginalized, only to belittle me for having a view which differs from your own?
Melstew,
Sorry but citing an entry on Wikipedia as “evidence” is pretty laughable. Even if that article is 100% accurate in it’s representations (haven’t bothered to fact-check it myself) ..... given the nature of how Wikipedia articles are written/edited.... you may as well cite a Magic 8 Ball.
It can be usefull occasionaly on non-controversial topics, but that is about it. On anything even slightly controversial it’s about 50/50 whether you get fact or outright fabrication.
Furthermore, the fact that certain Academies and Associations which purport to represent scientists have adopted specific policy positions doesn’t say very much about consensus among scientists themselves. We would have to know alot more about the internal working of those institutions, thier memberships.... and the nitty gritty of how those policy statements are determined to be able to speak to that point.
However, that does not make the consensus correct.
The world is flat.
You cannot travel faster than sound.
The atom is the smallest particle of matter.
You cannot travel faster than light.
Consensus only stands until demonstrated to be wrong. Being widely accepted does not make an idea correct. In science, verified by repeatable experiment, a hypothesis advances to theory.
Where, exactly has that occurred here?
In a planetary history alleged to be over 4 billion years we are to take a mere couple of hundred years of poorly controlled data and accept that for once, in the entire history of the planet, human activity is driving a change in climate which has occurred without that activity to drive it in the past.
I am far from convinced sufficiently to don sackcloth and ashes individually, or as part of a culture and go wandering in self-flagellation while other cultures are given a free pass to do more of what we are supposed to have done that is supposedly wrecking the planet.
I am even less inclined to see those cultures and the administering minions benefit economically from the penalties I and others of my culture allegedly should pay for our claimed 'sins', while those others are issued indulgences of the highest order.