Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966

What do you disagree with? The greenhouse theory? The fact that greenhouse gases have increased by about 50% since the advent of the industrial age? The fact that global temperatures are rising?

Isn't it better to just not flirt with fire in the first place?

Bush admits humans cause global warming, but rebuffs action
July 06, 2005: During the Group of Eight meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush acknowledged -- for the first time -- that pollution generated by humans is contributing to global warming. However, behind the scenes his delegation kept up the pressure to water down the international action plan on the issue. In the G8's Communique on Global Warming, U.S. negotiators tried -- but failed -- to delete mention of how higher temperatures affect climate, soften goals for reducing global warming gas emissions and block more stringent environmental regulations for World Bank power projects. In the end, the Bush administration lost the battle. The final statement pledged that all countries would act "with resolve and urgency" to meet the objective of "reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The other seven countries also reaffirmed their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which the president opposes. They also rejected the president's claim that mandatory pollution limits would "wreck" their economies and are moving forward with cutting emissions.

"Despite intense lobbying over the last few weeks, President Bush was unable to hold back world action to reduce global warming pollution. While the president has not embraced a mandatory program to reduce global warming pollution, the other countries clearly rejected the U.S. insistence on only a voluntary approach," said David Hawkins, director of NRDC's Climate Center. "What's clearly emerged is that the administration can no longer turn back the clock on the science or persuade others to deny the need for real, mandatory action to reduce global warming pollution."

President Bush is increasingly isolated at home and abroad in his opposition to mandatory pollution cuts, says Hawkins. In recent weeks, prominent Republicans, Democrats and business leaders have called for mandatory limits on U.S. global warming pollution -- over strenuous White House objection. Last month a majority of the U.S. Senate, including key Republicans and Democrats previously opposed to pollution cuts, called for "mandatory market-based limits" to "slow, stop, and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced major mandatory pollution reduction targets for their states. U.S. business leaders -- including the heads of General Electric and several major electric power producers -- have also called for action, realizing that voluntary efforts and modest government R&D programs won't do the job.