There have been revolutions in computational power and geophysical data collection since the 1970's. While climatology is not a precise science, our understanding of it is vastly better now than it was even a few years ago.

While there is always a minority view, there is a difference between a minority view primarily motivated by legitimate scientific dissent, and one motivated, at least in part, by powerful economic interests with much to lose, religious perspectives, and partisan politics.

Given the stakes riding on the outcome of the global warming debate, the battle has shifted from the purely scientific community into the political and societal arena, and rightly so. Nonetheless, the core issue remains scientific in character, and ultimately for scientists, not lobbyists, pundits and politicians to resolve. The time for a broader debate comes later.

It seems to me that, by far, the greater weight of scientific consensus is that global warming is real, and only a slightly less strong consensus is that human activity is a significant contributing factor. In my judgment, these can be disputed, but only by scientists doing more more and better science, and NOT by politicians, pundits, or anyone else with an agenda.

Jeff