The only myth is that there is any substantial debate among scientists that it's human-caused. Only some politicians who likely can't remember high school chemistry and a few industry folk cast doubt at this point. Here is one of the last skeptics -- he poked holes in study after study -- so he did his own:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Let's put it this way, if 95 out of 100 doctors diagnosed you in a certain way, would you do what they suggest or listen to other 5%? Or wait till that 5% finally came around? We are putting ourselves in a position where we'll have to explain to our kids and their kids how we knew and did nothing.
James Hansen, chief of climate science at NASA was one of the first to bring it to the world's attention more than 15 years ago. There was no reason for him to do so, no personal incentive -- it's what the data suggested. The climate modeling that came out of that has been by and large accurate, and as the data has gotten better, so has the modeling. Sure, it's imperfect, but the thrust is correct. Same as why a cooler year here or there means nothing to an overall trend. Most of the debate in the last fifteen years has been manufactured -- it's entirely apart from the science and data.
An old college friend, a scientist, has been studying the glacial activity in Greenland for the last 10 years. He gets paid regardless of what the data is, and he's been afraid for a long time now.
An argument is that we shouldn't do anything 'irrational' or 'radical'. As many climate scientists suggest, what we're doing, by pumping so much greenhouse gases into the environment is 'irrational' and 'radical'.