"The debate on global warming is over."
Remember when Newton and his contemporaries "knew" light was a particle? Remember when Young and friends "knew" light was a wave? One must never ever say the debate is over.
Indeed, many of the voices we've heard against the existence of a global warming crisis have not been from scientists (most recently, Sarah Palin). Their motivation is often political or economic, and the reasons they give generally suck. There are, however, good scientists that have good research using real data (and not computer models based on... who knows?) that have found that the recent temperatures that have been rising at the fastest rate in 150 years, lose that status when viewed alongside temperature fluxuation rates in the last 150,000 years, or even in the last 1,500 years.
I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree. I just ask that you understand the arguments against the notion of a climate change crisis, and consider the studies behind those arguments objectively.
So, what are these arguments? No friggin' way am I typing all that up! I'm going to let a far more qualilfied dude do the work.
Behold: YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
The lecture is long (over an hour), and yes, he gets on a soap box now and then, but the information is abundant and presented very well.