RealClimate saw it, among others. Separating the science of measuring and determining the causes for long-term temperature trends from the decisions about what (if anything) should be done sounds like a pipedream these days. There is no debate here - only the science. But science gives no comfort to glib voices, whichever position they may espouse.

Neither 1934 nor 1998 is the warmest year on record; the warmest year on record is 2005. The change has only had to do with the warmest years for the US. For documentation, see the link to the RealClimate posting provided by the previous commenter.

As for the acrimony: nearly all scientists working on the subject believe that there is no more cause to have a debate about global warming that there is about gravity or evolution. That is to say, a debate is always warranted, but one side of this debate is simply unable to make a convincing case. It is quite frustrating to see certain arguments fail in the scientific arena, while being taken seriously by many political figures. I suspect this accounts for the acrimony this subject generates.

Just out of curiosity, who was it who took this inventory of 'nearly all scientists working on the subject?'. Where did they publish their results.

Among those skeptical of arguements that observable temperature increases are generated by industrial activity is Richard Lindzen of MIT. Dr. Lindzen is among the most eminent meterologists and climatologists in this country and one of only two dozen who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Sharon Begley dismisses him as a reflexive contrarian.

Art Deco,

Stanford's Naomi Oreskes published an a survey in Science on this subject. Her findings,

analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Just for what it's worth, here's an article based on an interview with McIntyre. The author's transcript of the interview follows.

NASA does not look good.

Clawmute

Alex,

Both Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon have published scientific papers criticizing what you refer to as the "consensus view". One by Dr. Lindzen was in Environmental Pollution. I do not know how Naomi Oreskes missed it, but I will say a solitary search with a single compound keyword hardly seems comprehensive for building a bibliography.

...I will say a solitary search with a single compound keyword hardly seems comprehensive...

This is true. However, there is no reason to believe that the sample of papers with the keyword "climate change" examined by Oreskes is biased to include more or less papers critical of the consensus position. The fact that 0 out of 928 papers ended up being critical should suggest that the fraction of papers being published that is critical of climate science has to be on the order of 1/928 or less.

See Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society by noted physicist Freeman Dyson.

Here's an interesting critique of purported flaws in the Oreskes paper.

Don't know if they've ever been addressed.

Until recently, I had lost all my gusto for any facets of discussions surrounding global warming.

Clearly, the consensus of most competent scientists in the field is that global warming is a largely anthropogenic phenomena. There is no need to ascribe evil or malice to anyone or call anyone a toadie to acknowledge that the best general consensus is that our actions as humans are causing the planet to warm up. The silly histrionics of the Live Earth types does a disservice to that understanding, and helps the public and policy-makers about as much as those who would flatly deny the scientific consensus.

Ultimately, for me, the most worrisome part of this "debate" is that even though who realize it is not really a debate at all -- both because of the science and because of the stupidity of many of the prominent players -- don't see other options. We think of policy, I believe, largely as a debate leads to decision and that's that model. But other models for creating policy are out there, and seem particularly relevant to global warming.

My favorite is Ross McKitrick's little game theoretical policy model where no cap is imposed on carbon producing companies, but a small tax is levied and increases in that tax are tied to temperature changes in an area of the atmosphere where absolutely everyone agrees gross temperature fluctuations are anthropogenic.

If the corporate toadies are right, the tax will stay so small as to never really be a big deal and the Live Earth types look like idiots, not self-styled civil rights leaders. If the Inventor of the Internet and his minions are right, then carbon-producing companies will get hit hard and have to adjust their business practices in turn.

The debate-leading-to-policy type of process clearly is at a standstill and has no chance of mitigating the effects of global warming, which I think almost everyone recognizes as a potential risk (how big and how soon are key questions). A policy framework like McKitrick's, which dynamically links the effects of a given policy to decisive, measurable variables, seems like a more creative and wise solution.

Yes, That is to say, a debate is always warranted, but one side of this debate is simply unable to make a convincing case. It is quite frustrating to see certain arguments fail in the scientific arena, while being taken seriously by many political figures.