First of all, the current warming which began around 1850 is not unique in history nor is it the most pronounced. At the time of the Viking expeditions to the new world about 1000 years ago, the climate in Greenland was much warmer than at present. Why do you think they called it "Greenland"? It wasn't because it was completely covered with ice at that time.
As the ice melts under the present warming archeologists are uncovering evidence of the Norse civilization that lived there until about 1350. When it was first settled there were pastures for cattle to graze which wouldn't be possible at present. So at least locally the Greenland climate was warmer then that it is now even after 150 years of the current warming. Yet there was no highly developed industrial civilization burning coal and oil at that time. Clearly natural processes not only can but have made greater changes during recorded history than we are now experiencing.
Another point to consider is that most of the current 0.5oC to 1oC increase in temperature occurred before 1940. Most of the human generated carbon-dioxide was released after 1940. In fact global temperatures were falling between 1940 and 1975. While not conclusive this evidence undermines theory that carbon-dioxide is the cause of warming.
One of the leading myths of the pro-global warming advocates is that the issue is settled science and no credible scientists disagree. However, this is far from the case. What is noticeable about the global warming issue is the absence of debate. While the advocates claim the debate is over. I ask when did it ever happen? If you check around the are few examples of scientists pro and con ever having a scholarly discussion on the subject. The advocates cite governmental and international bodies as authoritative and just ridicule those who disagree. The opponents cite a plethora of documented scientific facts to support their views. This in itself doesn't disprove human-caused global warming but is should raise some real doubts about why the advocates of this bold theory aren't prepared to honestly debate their opponents.
Take a look at the British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for an easily accessible presentation of the global warming from the critics' viewpoint. Even if you just watch the first few minutes you will see that there are many credentialed scientists in the opponents' camp.
For some more background on "The Global Warming Swindle" documentary check out WAGtv's site Here.
For those who would like to read more about the case against human-caused global warming, I would recommend Dr. S. Fred Singer and Richard Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. This work presents the evidence in easily readable form that natural processes are driving the climate cycle. You can buy it from Amazon or request if from your local library.
Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Yong-San Choi of MIT have recently published a paper "On the Determination of Climate Feedbacks for ERBE data" in Geophysical Research Letters that shows the eleven leading climate models to be in disagreement with experimental observations. In a nutshell the climate models which have predicted massive gobal warming in the century ahead assume a trapping of long-wave radiation to a much greater extent than 16 years of satellite data has now determined. This has the consequence of a reduction in the predicted warning by a factor of six of the course of the next century. This is major blow to the climate crisis thesis that has been presented by the IPCC (and many national governmental agencies) for many years. For a more detailed discussion of these results click here. In particular read pages 3 and 4. On page 4 note that the graph in the upper left hand corner titled ERBE which is the experimental data contrasts sharply with the other 11 graphs which represent the results of climate models. For those who want to actually read the Lindzen & Choi paper click here.
Friedman writes about the “warming” that he experienced on his recent trip to Greenland. He should know that similar conditions existed there about a thousand years ago when the Vikings settled the island. Of course, the pro-global-warming climatologists claim that warm period, which lasted about 300 years, was just a local rather than a global occurrence. Yet Friedman and many climatologists ascribe global significance to the recent warming in Greenland that has lasted for a far shorter time. This is just one of the inconsistencies with a theory that attributes climate change to human activity.
Given the arguments above that would cast serious doubt on the Global Warming Theory, why do goverments continue to insist on believing in it? After all aren't they very smart people? I sure that they are but the question is what is their motivation. Perhaps it isn't truth but rather something else, i.e. an big excuse to raise taxes. This is the carbon tax or Cap and Trade as it is called. These taxes will be stealthy but they still bite. Do you even know how much of your gasoline bill goes to governments rather than the oil companies? Yet you are paying. See the attached link to see how hidden taxes will increase the cost of everything you buy. Click Here
After many years of enduring the UN's and media's assults on scientists whose research shows that the evidence does not support the climate catastrophe hypothesis, a group of scientists have formed their own ogranization: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). They have just released their first report on the scientific basis of the climate situation and conclude that no human-generated climate crisis is at hand. The effects of human released CO2 are uncertain and the effects a modest warming are likely to be positive.