Wow.  Just, wow.

Here is the Telegraph article, and here is the research behind this very recent expose' debunking the Global Warming debacle.

For the impatient, let me summarize:

proposition	Conclusion
That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed.	False
That the temperature has risen above millenial variability and is exception.	Very Unlikely
That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism.	False
That the last century's increases in temperature are correctly measured.	Unlikely
That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.	Not proven
That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good.	Very unlikely
That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.	Unlikely
That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference.	Very unlikely
That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective.	Very unlikely
That taking precautions, just in case, would be a responsible course.	False

If you want to read a great, fun novel about how this might have happened, read Michael Chrichton's State of Fear.  For a very lucid, easily readable and understandable review of all the terminology used in the Global Warming debate, visit Junk Science's Greenhouse section.  Of course, few people are really interested in understanding this terminology; after all, that's why we have "Scientists", right?

Another article (also in the Telegraph), notes the publishing of research that seems to show that cloud cover, correlated to ionizing solar radiation, has a much greater impact on global temperature profile than the UN funded reports would like you to believe.  Surprise...