Here, as in the world at large, a lot of weight is put upon the idea that there is a "consensus" for the view that human activity is the primary reason for a perceived warming trend. People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct. But that's a false premise. History is full of examples of cases in which "maverick" scientists who were in a small minority were either proven to be correct or came to be believed to have been correct. A discussion of that can be seen at Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated . I don't know much about the author, but I think that if you follow up on what he wrote you'll find it to be correct in terms of history. A quote: "As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent, and only the lone voice of the 'fringe' scientist is telling the truth. Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Todays science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide the huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression directed at the following researchers by colleague." I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that people of today display something akin to a "scientist worship." It's as though they don't think human beings have biases when they become recognized as "scientists." I found that web page while looking for articles on Barry Marshall. Dr. Marshall was the first to think that bacteria could cause stomach disease. His belief was ridculed at first but was eventually accepted (see Barry Marshall Biography -- Academy of Achievement ). Some will say that's an example of science correcting itself; and it is. But there's a key difference between the situation Dr. Marshall was in and the situation those who deviate from the "global warming" consensus are in. Dr. Marshall's beliefs could be tested through controlled experimentation; and controlled experimentation eventually proved him to be correct. A quote from the last link I posted: "When he was invited to attend a medical conference in Dallas, Texas in 1985, he repeated his assertions of the bacterial cause of gastric illness and challenged the audience of medical scientists to prove him wrong. Before long, experiments in the United States and elsewhere, many designed to refute his hypothesis, were in fact confirming it." That's the problem with the humankind-as-cause global warming thing. No experiment can be designed to test it. Instead, it's all based on what models have to say about what is thought about what would happen if only "natural" factors were involved vs. what would happen if human activity is included.