Response to Edufer's first post: My apoligies, but even though there were many facts in your two posts about the issue, you conciously or unconciously left out vital details and bent the facts to your own personal bias. And most of it was opinions and speculations anyway. In your first post, you link several times to mitosyfraudes, a site whose obvious purpose (check the site out) is to, among other things, incredibilize global warming (they only post one-sided articles that are denying global warming and credible scientifical results). They also seem to have a knack for nuclear power. Their "information" is contributed to another site, which isn't quite as obviously biased, but appears to decredibilize scepticism about high CO2 levels in the air and rather focus on its alledged positive effects. I'd also like to add that yes, climate variations from year to year do appear. The global warming, however, is a process that has gone over centuries, with temperatures rising above that of the last thousands of years. Response to Edufer's second post: Your allegations of water vapour compared to other greenhouse gases is valid in that water vapour is the major contributor. But your estimations of 95% of the effect are far off (as far as I know, it's closer to 50-60%), so you'll have to source that. As of yet, I haven't set myself into the issue of water vapour, so more comments about it will have to wait. Both the "small ice age" and the "medieval warmth period" was local variations in temperature. The small ice age appeared at different times all over the globe, and the medieval warmth period appears to be a north-atlantic phenonemoa. Unlike the current global warming. Based on studies done for the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm). Now comes a far more interesting issue. You make accusations against the IPCC for being incredible, but your most vital arguments (aka your only) for proving this are incorrect. - You alledge that the whole IPCC report was based on the research of MBH. This is very untrue. It is true that IPCC used Mann's data for the temperature estimations of the last millennium. But it is also true that the IPCC used several researches for the estimations, such as Jones, Briffa, other instrumental data and other sources. And it is also true that all of these confirmed Mann's Hockey Stick. It is also important to remember that in the comprehensive IPCC report, past temperature estimations are only a small part. - You alledge that MBH published a corrigenda, decredibilizing their own reports and estimations. Untrue. It is true that MBH published a smaller corrigenda, but it is very important to know that they did never go away from their researches or temperature estimations. In other words, this "corrigenda" is a happening that is much over-hyped by a somewhat anti-warming media. The rest of your post is speculations and accusations of the IPCC, none of which are supported, all of which seems to be a product of your own bias and dislike against them. The IPCC is the UN Intergovernal Climate Panel, its entire purpose is to give a neutral insight in climate problems. Accusing it of corruption is just another conspiracy theory. Response to Andre: I can't really see where you're getting at. To me, it seems as if though you use the general acceptance of global warming as an argument against it. You seem to believe that if a scientifical theory has few scientists supporting it, its credibility increases. Using that logic, we may conclude that evolution never occured, fairies exists, humanity is all a giant alien experiment, etc. The rest of the post you use to compare global warming with religion. You have no reasons for doing so except your own bias against it. Global warming is well documented, unlike the allegations against it. Accusing the IPCC of corruption is once again a product of your own bias against its results. It is especially hypocritical, concidering the many strong energy companies attepting to decredibilitize the results of all science that shows that these companies will have to invest more money in cleaning and reducing emissions.