Glowbal Warmening discussed at length

Michael Hammer:

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic:

This is worth a read, it is long as hell, but worth reading nonetheless. It breaks down the issues with the global warming climate change fallacies better than any other argument than I have ever seen.

Excerps:

The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data. This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures. This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence. I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant. I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

AND:

For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature. Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend. The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance.

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGW. If they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2.

Take the time to read the whole thing. It pretty well trashes the "logic" that is used in the AGW arguments.

Update:

It seems that all of the original data about surface temps seems to have vanished in a sorta/kinda tragic accidents or something....