@Pete69,
The argument that the current warming is a continuation of the same trend that ended the Little Ice Age simply doesn't fit with current models or the sheer rate of warming that has occurred over the last 30 years. While it is undoubtedly true that there have been natural variations in the climate over time, you must understand the mechanisms behind them - there is always a catalyst of some sort, natural or otherwise. In this case, the catalyst is the exponential rise in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which is causing an unprecedented rate of warming.
Consensus among scientists? No one in the scientific community denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the rise in CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels, that if CO2 levels continue to rise warming will continue, that the current pronounced warming trend is outside of natural variability and that sea levels have risen in the last century. No one. These are simple facts. Scientists have come up with many well-developed and consistent models and predictions based on actual science. Those who oppose these models and predictions are in the tiny minority and are mostly not scientists. If you can provide me with a model that convinces me that CO2 does not affect the global temperature, then maybe we can have a proper debate.
The Finland study: I have looked this up, and luckily as a post-graduate scientist and researcher, I am able to read and evaluate studies. This is a non-peer reviewed study that has only been published on a preprint website because a reputable journal is yet to pick it up. It is flawed on many levels and is based on bad science. The authors give no physical explanation for their 'evidence', their correlations are the wrong way around, they have not cited enough sources or provided enough data to support their claims, they are contradictory in their use of climate models (denouncing them on the one hand and then using them to support their argument on the other) and the paper only has six references, four of which are the author's own, two of which have not been published. If this was a paper from one of my university students, I would fail it.
Joseph Bast: oh, you mean that ultra conservative non-scientist who is funded by Exxon to be a climate change skeptic and who also challenges the science that smoking is not bad for you? Sorry, but I prefer to listen to scientists who don't have a conflict of interest.
Pete, skepticism in science is healthy. Scientists should always challenge their own thinking. However, climate change denial is not a healthy form of skepticism. It is simply ignoring the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change. Using any old blog or op ed as 'proof' that climate change doesn't exist is really bad for you and the planet.
