Yep. Sure were a lot of SUVs and coal fired electrical plants 130,000 years ago.
*********
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p01s03-sten.html

..."Already, temperatures in the Arctic are close to those that thawed much of Greenland's ice cap some 130,000 years ago, when the planet last enjoyed a balmy respite from continent-covering glaciers, say the studies' authors."...

Article continues, if one's semi-religious environmental beliefs permit the read.
*********
As for the general consensus of scientists agreeing on global warming ... well, maybe they don't.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

..."A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans."...

..."With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating “strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

“The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong,” Bray reported in his findings. “Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes' conclusion is not as obvious as stated.”...

..."Concluded Gunter, “Actually, were Dr. Oreskes' assertion of unanimity true, it might only prove how totally co-opted the peer journals have become by enviro group-think and how willing they are to censor dissenting views in an effort to preserve and polish the notion of worldwide scientific consensus.”
*********
Of course, we don't really know what's going on: just say we do.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ecc98cd8-217e-448f-97cb-38926b2a04d8

..."Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth.

So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer.

He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight.

It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

"Every one of these things (parts of his theory) has its problems. But so does every other model" of how Earth's climate behaves.

Veizer says high-energy rays from distant parts of space are smashing into our atmosphere in ways that make our planet go through warm and cool cycles.

Cosmic rays are hitting us all the time -- a well-known fact. What's new is that researchers are asking what cosmic rays do to our world and its weather.

- Last year, the British science journal Proceedings of the Royal Society published a theory that cosmic rays "unambiguously" form clouds and affect our climate.

- Florida Tech and the University of Florida are jointly investigating whether cosmic rays are the trigger that makes a charged thundercloud let rip with lightning.

- In 2003, scientists from NASA and the University of Kansas suggested that cosmic rays "influence cloud formation, can affect climate and harm live organisms directly via increase of radiation dose," an effect they claim to trace over millions of years of fossil history.

Veizer has published his theory in Geoscience Canada, the journal of the Geological Association of Canada. The article is called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle.

In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."...
Article continues.
*********
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/globwarm.htm

..."It was then, in the early 1970s, that ideology, and not science, began to drive so-called climate science. If a disaster scenario for global cooling might promote the use of more fossil fuels, and hence more industrialization and more population, another scenario would have to be found--equally scary but more directly blamable on human activity. The driving force was to get people to blame science for environmental disasters, to use fewer resources, and to shrink the world's population, particularly its brown, black, and yellow parts.

And so the climate science funding proliferated, climate modelling proliferated, global warming and ``greenhouse effect'' propaganda proliferated--and climate science, based on study of solar astronomical cycles, oceanography, geology, and so on, was buried alive.
Enter the Greenhouse
That there is a``greenhouse effect'' in the atmosphere has been known and studied for more than 100 years. That there are certain obvious gases that make up the ``greenhouse'' has also been known; gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. The residual ``natural'' greenhouse effect (without the supposed anthropogenic input in the last 150 years), has been sufficient in the past 12,000 years to raise the Earth's atmospheric temperature by about 15°C, mainly as a result of the presence of water vapor and carbon dioxide. Considering the temperature at the beginning of this rise (about 5°C), with glaciers extending across all of North America to Cairo, Illinois, and in northwestern Europe, that increase in temperature has been rather beneficial to the well-being of humankind--to say the least."...
The rather lengthy article continues.
*********
And, this undeniable warming is happening all over the solar system, not merely to Earth. Mr. Hoagland is not infrequently reasonable, even I must admit.

http://www.profindsearch.com/news/2005/08/27/PFS1133.htm

..."Is this effect limited to just Pluto? Apparently not. In an article called "Interplanetary “Day After Tomorrow?” Richard C. Hoagland and David Wilcock state "The entire solar system - not just our one small planet -- is currently undergoing profound, never-before-seen physical changes."

On their site they quote the following highlights:

Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun"...
Article continues.
*********
BTW: Should any of the above listed web addresses be down, I have saved all the above articles in full, and can send them to any who might desire.
_________________________
http://anysoldier.com
I am what I am and that's all what I am - Popeye the Sailor Man
From simplicity make not complexity without necessity - John of Ockham
Proven liquid water and fossilized life on Mars are SERIOUS BUSINESS