Oh it's a hoax all righty, and for a damnded good reason. Perhaps you would like to know who and why we have this "Global Warming!!!" theory imapcting enviro/economic policy at all.
The private tax-exempt "charitable" foundations owned by the families holding large positions in federal treasury notes and the petrochemical fuel comapnies their progenitors founded are seeking to make an even faster buck. BP, for example, has acquired major holdings in natural gas, rare earth minerals, and platimum mining in the interest of converting our economy to fuel cells. They don't want to lose money on that investment. Packard Foundation has large holdings in developing suboceanic methane hydrides. They don't want to lose money on that investment. British and Dutch royal families, the Pew family, and the Rockefellers are all in the act. So what do they do? They fund environmental groups, academics, and politicians seeking to "prove" that there is global warming, so that they can cash in. Those families are the force behind the IPCC report simply because the UN is easily bought through the NGOs they fund. Even worse, international bankers and utility companies play that bogus carbon credit market they've cooked up in order to subsidize their investments in third whirled countries! Where does the cash come from? They make sure they get their skim through the Bank of International Settlements with funds taken off electrical bills throughout the country that already carry a hidden (and illegal) tax purchasing those credits. Kyoto is slowly being implemented even though the Senate rejected it.
That's "Global Warming." It has NOTHING to do with the environment and everything to do with making money. The very same people were behind the old "coming ice age" canard in the early 1970s AND environmental regulations shutting down their competitors (such as nuclear). You apparently don't know that.
You chose to condesendingly "inform" me that ice core data shows that there is increased atmospheric carbon dioxide AFTER I had already directed you to a paper discussing the affects of INCREASED carbon dioxide!
That's idiotic, and I said so, without apology.
You have continued to hold that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming AFTER I posted quantitative proof that there is not.
That shows no integrity.
After seeing a graph showing that increased carbon dioxide happens AFTER a cyclical temperature increase over preceding eons, you are capable of concluding that they show that increased carbon dioxide CAUSES global warming.
If that is your standard for scientific analytical ability, you have none.