In July 1979...the panel concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored.

C'mon greenhouse gases, come and get me...neaahhh...

Some threat -- still waiting.

Warming is a threat that started in 1820 and we have yet to see anything other than superabundance coming from it.

Greenhouse Gases,  your mother wears Army boots...yeah...

What happened since the 1970s was that some very good satellites were launched to record the Earth's surface temperature in many swaths many times per day. This is excellent data and cannot be refuted, and using large computers "mean average global temperature" can be easily computed. I'd say we only have about 7 years of such indisputable data.

Back in the 1970s we did not have these wonderful satellites or computers but many of the pioneers had already glommed the correct answer using antiquated, fixed temperature station data. The fallacy made by the "global cooling" folks was that their measurements were biased to places that were ... cooler.

If you recall, at the time it was remarkable that folks were talking about (a) radiative forcing and warming and (b) aerosol dimming and cooling. What is important about this period in scientific history is not who "won the debate" but the fact that the debate was happening at all. It was a wonderful time of invention and hypothesizing and model building.

What irks scientists today is when some crackpot goes back and examines the data from the 1970s and says, without equivocation, "See I told ya, it was getting colder back then!" Worse yet are deniers who say "look, see, it is getting colder even today!"  We now know to write those quacks off as frauds.  

Feel better?

Onward through the fog

You're living in a fantasy world. There is not a a consensus among today's scientists. I've thoroughly researched climate change for five years and have found numerous reputable scientists who disagree with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Real empirical science and mathematics has proven that apocalypitic global warming brought on by manmade CO2 emissions isn't happening nor will it happen even if we doubled our CO2 emissions. The IPCC makes its predictions based on computer simulations, set up to result in the warming they desire, and the IPCC ignores empirical data and climate history. Furthermore, numerous sources have verified that we've had no warming in 10 years with enough cooling to elimate all the warming of the past 30 years, and this cooling is still happening. To claim there is a consensus among scientists that apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming is real and then ignore anything that refutes that claim is asinine and anti-scientific. In science skepticism of any theory is healthy and warranted. When data that contradicts a theory is ignored, ridiculed, altered and covered up it's no longer science. Do some actual research and free your mind from the lies.

or can you present us some evidence, citations, or at least name those reputable scientists?

Oh yeah, ceterum censeo: Hansen was rong in his 1988 testimony.

Mars J. Pictor Florifulgurator, Western Bavarian Forest.