There's quite a lot that don't agree with AGW, and in terms of 'peer reviewed' stuff? Heh, you do know about climategate don't you?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...he-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/
Of course I know about it. And what an over-blown, manufactured controversy we have there.
Firstly, given the allegations made in this thread about some global conspiracy of scientist and politicians to tax us to death, or rake in money from alternative-energy companies, or whatever the latest theory is, you expect to see some evidence of that in the CRU emails. There is nothing, no hint of any collaboration between scientists and politicians or scientists and these energy companies. Remember, these are emails going back 10 years here.
Second we have allegations of data manipulation. Yet no one has been able to show a single paper where this supposed data manipulation has been used. If they manipulated the data, they must have published it somewhere right? How come no one can find it?
Third we an allegation of pressure to suppress contradicting papers. When in fact it was a group of researchers refusing to publish in a journal that they felt had published a sub-par paper by some well known, so-called "climate skeptics". This is the same journal where 6 of the editors resigned over the publication of that paper because it bypassed the normal review process. Frankly, it is their choice where they publish their own papers and it doesn not prevent anyone else publishing in the same journal.
Lastly, we have what looks like an attempt by some researchers to dodge an FOI request. The instigator of that has already been suspended and the data is being made available. In fact over 90% of it was already available from other sources.
As to that blog posting, I asked for actual research by actual climate scientists, not links to some amateur blogger who thinks he has found some anomoly. Neither you or I have the ability and knowledge required to understand whether there really is an issue, a misunderstanding of the data or whether such a reconstruction is reasonable or not. It could be a real issue, or it could be someone spinning something to make it look like an issue, just like every other of these allegations I've taken the time to look into in the past.
Take for example those graphs that were posted earlier in the thread. The first one I looked into to get the actual source data did not match what was presented and it magically cut off before 2000, where the real graph's upward temperature swing was most prevalent. I'm afraid you can't take these blog posts at face value and actually need to take the time to dig into the actual papers or ask questions of the actual researchers to find out the real truth of the matter.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is all fluff. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We need it to keep our planet at a livable temperature. There is no question or controversy about that. We know that CO2 makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, yet contributed 20% of our warming. There is no question or controversy about that. We can measure emprically how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and we can see it is increasing. There is no question or controversy about that.
So why is there any argument at all? If the world is not warming now (which it is), we are already creating the conditions for it to warm considerably. The only questions are what will be the impacts and what should we do about it?
Anyway, I think I've bored people enough on this topic. As I said, I'm happy to look at published evidence from active climate researchers, so if you have any of that evidence, then please provide it and I'll consider it very seriously.
Cheers all.
We could even ask that some people held theirs a little longer! The Labour government for example 
