Regarding your comments about global warming proofs:
The Hansen-NOAA and Hadley CRU team have discredited themselves repeatedly, for their politically-motivated "hockey stick" graphic which was created by mathematical sophistry. Additional deliberate lies were committed to erase the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) - from their graphs as well as from textbooks - and is another causus belli as to why they cannot be trusted, as is the "climategate" email fiasco, where they were caught openly plotting on how best to spread what they knew were lies, and how to professionally back-stab and destroy their critics, as well as to censor them.
Any temperature record that starts at c.1800 will show a progressive global warming because the Earth was then coming out of the Little Ice Age. But the temperature increase after the LIA fluctuated back to cooling from c.1940-70, and then went warm again, and now begins to moderate or cool once again. It is a natural cycle, maybe solar-wind/cosmic-ray driven, but in any case not driven by CO2. Every study of ice-core data has shown CO2 variation lags behind ice-mass (global thermal proxy) variations by some 500 years - atmospheric and ocean temperature changes drive atmospheric CO2 changes, as shown in the same ice-core data abused by Gore in his movie, but shown at such a low resolution nobody could see the deception. That, in addition to other outrages, such as his showing photos of boats stranded in sand dunes from near to the Aral Sea, which were the product of failed Soviet irrigation schemes which left several of their port cities stranded, and re-claimed by the deserts in later years.
Or similar satellite photos of Lake Chad, which has been diminishing in size since long before the Industrial Revolution - but with acceleration of this trend in more recent years due to a combination of Sahara Desert expansion, increased agricultural irrigation pumping and diversion of the river systems which formerly kept it alive. The deliberate deceptions aside, is incredibly simplistic and unscientific to merely blame such things upon the unproven effects of a claimed CO2 warming (which even if true, by many theorists should increase clouds and rains), while ignoring all the other powerful and more obvious influences.
As to the warming trends after c.1800 - most of the critics of CO2-warming theory agree there has been some real warming, including myself. However, there are others who make a reasonable argument that too many of the weather measuring stations which were once located in isolated greenery of rural regions, have since suffered from encroaching urbanization with more paved-over and roof-top surfaces replacing greenery. This has led to an increasing intrusion of the well-known urban heat-island effects into the global temperature record. And that has nothing to do with CO2's claimed atmospheric powers, which always have been suspect.
While most climatologists accept there has been a warming in the last 200 years, it is also widely known that this hasn't been continuous, and a majority also agree it hasn't been CO2-driven, nor is it necessarily going to continue even if CO2 levels continue to rise - but even if it does, we have the much warmer time of the Medieval Warm Period to show that it won't be anything like the doomsday scenario of the alarmist politicians like Al Gore, or the IPCC staff, which is stacked with politicans and political activists, and fewer climate scientists on board as compared to those of us who protested against it in widely-known petitions and open letters.
By sophisticated mathematical lies, the warmists have erased prior natural thermal cycles within their data, of the MWP and LIA, which were far more extreme in both cold and warm than what we've experienced in the last several decades. This was accomplished first by irrationally applying mathematical "correctives" to diminish the large transients in ice-core proxy data up through around 1950. They then merged that proxy data with a questionable set of tree-ring temperature proxy-data - whose peculiarities were exaggerated to yield up a constant "warming" and the well-known "hockey stick". A slightly different set of proxy data, or mathematically honest presentation of the ice-core data to show its fluctuations, would demolish warmist arguments - and in fact, the IPCC's first report showed no such "hockey stick" because it included the important transients of the MWP and LIA. That original graphic of the IPCC validated and matched known historical records. Nobody is today living in the same areas the Vikings once colonized in Western Greenland, and neither the Thames nor New York Harbor have yet frozen shut over winter as happened regularly during the LIA - though I hear the Thames did get close to it both last year and this one.
Before finger-wagging under my nose about what government websites are saying - websites which routinely censor out opposing opinions - you might benefit by actually reviewing the critics' arguments to know what they are saying.
In the 1970s Hansen championed a coming New Ice Age, and was shown to be wrong. His reputation sank into the melting permafrost, so he now has "got religion" and jumped on the warming band-wagon, getting a ton of grant money to promote socialist agendas as a reward. But it is all based upon a big fraud. The Medieval Warm Period had much more melted permafrost, with no extinctions of penguins or polar bears, no significant rise in sea levels (Greenland and Antarctic ice is not "melting away", but are actually increasing in many areas - and floating Antarctic ice sheets are expanding while only those in the Arctic are reducing, so it is no "global" effect.) And so on, and so on. Every major claim of the warmers make is predicated upon half-truth or lies of omission, with a lot of data fudging.
For starters, I suggest to review the new book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science by A.W. Montford, which details the arguments, pro and contra, as well as the data-fudging and lying by the warmists.
There are many other points one could make on this issue, but for an email letter this should be sufficient to at least show you are off the mark in many major respects.
James DeMeo, PhD