Science Magazine article here.

I had to pay for access, and while the paper came right up, I might still be on their "paid" list. For that reason, I am also reluctant to link directly to the graphs, since it's paid material.

One zinger is the chart of length of 300 glaciers over time between the years 1700 and 2000. It's a smooth curve rising slightly until about 1750, staying flat until about 1820, then dropping rapidly and steadily, with nary a bump, at about a 45 degree downward slope until the present.

It doesn't take a PhD to deduce that it ain't our car exhausts and power plants doing that.

On a different note, I posted on "Dirty Snow" below.

This is important: I don't have a single source that triumphantly kills the human-caused global warming theory.

What I have found is a large number of separate items over time, usually in papers by legitimate scientists, each one either inconsistent with the theory, or showing valid alternatives to it. I once posted a link collecting a number of articles on this subject. Individually, these and others can be dismissed, and some are better sources than others. But all together?

If this were a simple academic argument, like about the mass of some galaxy or something, it would be of little consequence. But it has become a huge political issue, and what is at stake is our political and especially our economic freedom. Every "solution" proposed for this by its proponents is heavily socialist, calls for large concentration of power in centralized authorities, and a hostility toward the West and industrial society. Workable solutions like nuclear power are often dismissed as ineffective at best, and strongly opposed at worst.

Henrik Svensmark's "Discover" magazine interview is still not online, but the man is actually being ostracized for his theories, and has been shaken by the hostile responses to his ideas.

You should be highly suspicious of ANY scientific issue carrying this much baggage. Scientists who stray too far off the path are kicked out of the club. Scientists who are on board are rewarded by positive press and, in many cases, funding. Is this a recipe for objectivity? Is "denier" really a term that should show up in objective research? If I told you James Hansen was turning into another Cindy Sheehan, would you understand what I was driving at?