New Scientist articles, comments on AGW
I've read a few of the articles at the link you supplied, and also a number of the comments thereto, several of which seem to raise logically valid objections to New Scientist's supposed debunking of climate myths.
I've changed my mind on this issue once, and will continue to keep an open mind about AGW and the role of carbon dioxide as I continue to educate myself, but the question is hardly a simple one and the factors are many, witness the comments by David Ellard, and others.
Nevertheless, at this point, the arguments of the AGW skeptics and "deniers" are more persuasive, and AGW remains an unproven theory, in my opinion.
S