For example, there's an excellent article on Natural History magazine's website archive (sorry, I couldn't provide a direct link to the article) from last October, "Glaciers That Speak in Tongues and Other Tales of Global Warming". Far from being a right-wing publication, Natural History is published by the American Museum of Natural History. The article was written by Wallace S. Broecker, a scientist from Columbia University who has been researching climate change for decades. In fact, he wrote one of the earliest articles linking the possibility of human activity on climate change for Science magazine back in 1976.

The article provides an excellent overview of decades of climate research. It shows how different cycles seem to be at play, some 80 years long, others 180 years long, and one that's 1500 years long as derived from core samples and sediment studies covering up to 100,000 years. It shows how difficult it has proven to reconcile the cycles detected in one study with those detected in others and how complex climate change really is. He still cautions that we should take steps to reduce manmade greenhouse gases and he makes a good point. Frankly, I'll take his opinion over yours and all the other climate change dogma believers put together.

Towards the end of the article, he wrote:

"So where do we stand? For a start, certain regular fluctuations in the Holocene climate seem to occur, but scientists are still left with many uncertainties about them. This prevents us from making a meaningful prediction concerning how the climate would have changed in the absence of the Industrial Revolution. We cannot prove the existence of either the 1,500-year cycle—which the available Greenland ice cores fail to record—or the combined 80- and 180-year cycles. However, we can state with some confidence that natural Holocene temperature fluctuations have been on the same scale as the human-caused effects estimated to result from greenhouse gases. Hence, we cannot assume that in the absence of human intervention, Earth's temperatures would have remained stable.

Unfortunately, we cannot even say whether natural changes are at this point retarding or reinforcing human-induced greenhouse warming. The situation will be much clearer two decades from now, however, as computer simulations predict an additional 1.5° F warming by the year 2020. If such an increase in global temperatures occurs, there will not be any doubt: natural causes alone would not have been sufficient to account for it."

He concludes the article with the following paragraph:

"We have learned that Holocene temperatures have undergone natural fluctuations, but the causes of these changes are so subtle that we have yet to figure them out. Apparently, our climate system responds to even tiny nudges. This being the case, the potential effects of human activities should not be underestimated. If we continue along a business-as-usual energy course, we'll be giving the climate a large shove."