[thoughtomator]

Let's see some proof. Remember, the key is that global warming is alleged to be the result of human activity. This in turn has political implications across the board, and globally. Otherwise global warming would simply be a non-political subject. Furthermore, you say "a majority of scientists". Whose opinion was solicited in coming to this conclusion? And how many of those scientists are invested in the acceptance of human-agency global warming? Of those who are not making a dollar off of it, how many are even qualified to make an assessment? The Earth has too many atmospheric, biological, geological, and astronomic variables to make any such conclusion in the absence of hard proof. And if there were any hard proof, a) we'd have seen it already, and b) it would be a lot more than a simple majority of scientists who agreed.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Whose opinion was solicited in coming to this conclusion?

A Freeper meteorologist. I will look for the post, but I asked him (or her) about global warming. He said that a majority of scientists accept its validity. The debate now was whether it is natural or manmade. He seemed to feel it was both, as did most of his fellows.

hard proof. And if there were any hard proof, a) we'd have seen it already,

There are plenty of accounts in the scientific literature of temperature variations, CO2 levels, abnormal animal movements, and so forth. Studies come from a spectrum of scientific disciplines. All these reports are difficult to ignore and the disbelievers in global warming have not addressed them.

it would be a lot more than a simple majority of scientists who agreed.

Non-scientists are not really qualified to make conclusions. I really don't put too much stock in what non-scientists say just like I don't put much stock into my optometrist's opinion about my tooth ache. I ask the dentist.