The thing is all those peer reviews are not the ultimate bulletproof evidence to me...definitely not on the level of the non flat Earth evidence. I do not want to question the work of people who unlike me are educated in climate science, but when i see other scientists do this, i ask myself: If AGW is 100 percent sure and proven to be happening, why are these people questioning it? Indeed you may claim they have vested interest, are paid by oil companies etc...but the same can be said about the AGW apologists, so it is not very helpful, right?.

Anyway talking about nonflat Earth, are there any scientists out there who question it? No, because there is bulletproof evidence for this. There is no such evidence for AGW - surely all those *homogenized* temperature graphs, ignoring the ocean cycles in the models and the fact they cant explain the cooling in the recent years {they said it, not me} is good reason to think this way.

Currently the rate of warming has slowed down (0.29C/decade) but it's still an *increase* and the idea that there has been no warming in recent years has been debunked literally dozens of times in this thread alone.

If you claim black is white, up is down and warming is cooling then there is no thing that anyone can explain to you.

Bingo.  Can't predict either worth a damn.

I really hope you lost a couple zeroes there, 12 km would be an implausibly tight monitoring net. I can bet there isn't an official weather station within 12 km of my parents' house, or the high school I went to (over 12km from the house). The only reason there is one within 12km of where I'm sitting is the airport.

 And you claim the sceptics come again and again with the same arguments...cause hockeystick is the latest and the ultimate evidence of AGW, never used before...

Mumbles, take all the bullshit you're spreading, and apply it to the current information sets.  You know, so they'll grow better.

The only reason the average temperature changes are so drastic is because...  The poles are the only things warming significantly.

Who was taking temperatures at the north pole 200 years ago?  No one.  The datasets that show that nice, even temperature, debunking the medieval warming period(I don't really give a shit either way on whether it existed or not) are from sources that still show a nice, even temperature.  The tree rings in the northern hemisphere show no drastic warming, remember?  Vostok, last time I checked, still showed no historical warming as well, actually having been colder by .4C compared to the core records during the 55-88 time span.

You really should stop debunking stupidity from other people and debunk your own debunker first.  He seems to be a few cards short of a full deck.

Why?  Warming from -30 to -28 in the middle of the summer isn't exactly catastrophic news.  It's the change in ice sheet coverage.  The temperatures at Vostok haven't shown any remarkable changes to match that two degree shift we've got going in the region around the continent, they're stable, just like the ice core sample the so called scientists are basing this warming trend from.

The MWP has in fact been displayed in graphs in many replies in this thread and typically has been used as some sort of disproof of the "hockey stick" and by extension AGW. If you haven't noticed this then you must have missed way more than a few posts. Again this is simply confusing the difference between regional weather and climate. Yes the MWP and LIA periods did exist but neither disproves the hockey stick.

Could you pick a worse method of putting your own foot in your mouth?

First, a glass of water does not stay at 0C until all the ice melts.  If it did, the ice would never melt under the surface, major duh here since it melts faster.  Aren't you an engineer?

Ice is exactly why the relevancy of the warming shift in the poles is even less relevant than it would be if you went purely by surface coverage.  The difference between the air temperature above open water and ice pack is massive.  A minor shift in seasonal ice cover makes for a significant change in the surface and lower troposphere temperatures.  You should be able to figure this out by measuring the temperature of the air above your glass of ice water.  Instead of all that sunlight reflecting off ice, and going back out into space through the thinner, ozone depleted polar atmosphere, it's hitting water, being absorbed, and that obviously warmer ocean is carrying warmth from other regions to the affected area to begin with.  Since it's no longer an ice sheet, moisture carried up off the ocean thickens the atmosphere as well, aiding in heat retention.  No signs of a catastrophic green house event in a two degree shift, just a few miles difference in the radius of the ice sheet expansion.

Now that the sun is back in a relatively dormant cycle, if the process reverses and the ice sheets expand outward and cut off the shipping lines again, you'll look like a real dumbass for having bought the farm over it.

AGW advocates will spew the usual disdain, to nobody's surprise.

I would be more inclined to accept the ipcc 'hockey stick' graph if it included the original English data as at least one of the data sets.  I haven't seen any evidence that his data is less reliable then Mann's data and would speculate that English records should at least compromise one set of data.  Since there's no tree rings to check in Greenland and the ice cores would not be coastal, that's another site with anecdotal evidence of enhanced warmth versus current that is not shown.  And that is accepting the 'its a northern Atlantic localized warm/cold condition argument.

I also like the weather climate distinction.  Climate is the average of weather over time over area.  You can't disregard long term weather conditions in the analysis of climate as without weather there would be no climate.  Obviously if this was localized it would be at least somewhat averaged out but the data set should be there.

China wrecked the Copenhagen deal, according to a journalist who was in the room with the heads of state:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas