Prime had the great global warming on tv tonight then a special after it to debate it

I must say I was not that impressed.
1) There were 3 for global warming and 2 non believers of global warming
2) Only 1 scientist against global warming
3) 1 green peacer who had no understanding of the facts at all
4) Neither side showed facts
5) The 2 scientists (for global warming) are being funded by the government and would not have jobs if there is no such thing.
6) The other 2 scientists who believe in global warming had not done their own study and one of them commented that the studies show the natural cycle and yet the graphs are still slowly going up, but the graphs in the program did not back that.
7) The one scientist who did not believe in global warming was great and also had his name showing as believing in global warming, he does not. He has done his own studies in sea climate and is not being funded by the government, and supports the documentary.

I decided to do a bit of googling on the info given by these experts.

Like the signing of scientist who don't approve global warming.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition#Signatories
"The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of anthropogenic global warming"

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal
"The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners.[48] This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific environmental issue, but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions"."

3)
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html
A current petition with over 31,000 signatures by including 9,000 plus signers with PhD's
The petition -
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "

So I am still a believer that this is a natural cycle, and these are some of my reasons -

ooohhh look at all the ups and downs on these 3 charts **** Note the dates ****
http://www.longrangeweather.com/550bc.htm
and have a look at this cool chart -
Please note ups and downs
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/gtemps.gif