All scientists do NOT agree. If they did, there would be no GW debate. Laypersons are not the ones debunking the "GW is totally man made" theory, it is attacked by other scientists!
Just looking at the first 2 pages of Google:
_________
By Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html. Admittedly, the Cato Institute is a conservative thinktank.
_________
By Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.
Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. "Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.
Within the large-scale climate modelling community--a small subset of the community interested in climate--however, the immediate response was to criticize Hansen for publicly promoting highly uncertain model results as relevant to public policy. Hansen's motivation was not totally obvious, but despite the criticism of Hansen, the modelling community quickly agreed that large warming was not impossible. That was still enough for both the politicians and advocates who have generally held that any hint of environmental danger is a sufficient basis for regulation unless the hint can be rigorously disproved. That is a particularly pernicious asymmetry, given that rigor is generally impossible in environmental sciences.
Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential. "
______
And this article I really agree with:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html.
Excerpts:
"So, what would constitute "smoking gun" evidence for human-induced global warming? I would like to suggest the following as an example of such evidence. We would have needed 50 to 100 years of accurate satellite observations (not model-based inferences) of the radiative components of the Earth's radiation budget: at least the amount of absorbed sunlight and the amount of emitted infrared radiation. It has been exceedingly difficult from the limited record of satellite measurements to extract a signal of radiation imbalance in the climate system (let alone diagnose what has caused it). Over the period of a sufficiently accurate satellite record, we would need to be able to measure an increasing imbalance between absorbed sunlight and Earth-emitted infrared radiation. Then, through additional global-scale measurements, we would need to be able to rule out natural changes in clouds, water vapor, deep ocean heat storage, and any other process that could explain some or the entire radiation imbalance.
Some believe that the recent global warmth is greater that it has been in the last 1,000 years, which by itself would be evidence for man-caused global warming. I personally don't have much faith in the indirect estimates of global temperatures before the twentieth century, but I agree that the current warmth is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The big question is, how much of it?"
another:
"In summary, the recent study by Hansen et al. indeed presents one possible interpretation of the available evidence, but it is a very human-centric one that assumes that natural decadal- to century-scale climate fluctuations are not to blame for at least some part of what has been recently observed. Or, using the "smoking gun" metaphor, it isn't yet clear whether mankind is the perpetrator, Mother Nature is an accomplice, or vice versa.
Nevertheless, the study represents the kind of synthesizing science that is needed in order to better understand the extent to which mankind is influencing the climate system."
what incomplete data? There's hardly a chance to get better data....
then we can talk about proof of GW.....
I wish they were right, but our climate's going down the crapper.....
