While I am not a climatologist, I am a mathematician. When I first reviewed the math behind the "global warming" forecast models, I saw incomplete data. The math predicted a direct correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and world temperature. Melting sea ice would disrupt the flow of Atlantic Ocean currents and lead to a sudden catastrophic ice age, as Randy Quaid once so passionately described to me in a ridiculous movie. Furthermore, arctic ice reflects the suns cosmic rays, and less ice means less reflection of rays that are already being trapped by increased CO2. Where were the forecast models that predicted a gradual cooling trend? If the world starts to cool, for which "all signs point to yes", then doesn't that mean that we will get more ice, reversing the reduction of sun reflecting ice, reducing the "Randy Quaid threat level"?
Al Gore, you have a problem. The debate is not over. It has only just begun! How do you explain previous ice ages when mankind was not driving cars and burning coal for electricity?
"When everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"
-General George Patton
I would direct you to my piece Where Environmentalism Ends and Marxism Begins.