The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), has a Petition Project that shows that not everyone in science thinks that human caused global warming is a problem as is thought by many people. The petition project website says the following:

'The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PHDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”


http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

At this page on the website, you can see that the people that sign this petition are not just your average person. This page shows the extent of these people's educations in the sciences: they know their stuff.


http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Off this page on the petition project website, there is a 28 slide PowerPoint file that you can view by clicking on the "PowerPoint" link in the third paragraph. This file contains 28 graphs with various types of information proving the human caused global warming hype wrong.

Many of the graphs compare the growth in CO2 emissions over time to the way various other things that are said to be affected by CO2 have changed over time such as:

Temperature - Slide 1: This graph shows the temperature changes over the past 3,000 years. When you look at it, you see that compared to passed years, the current temperature is much lower. You can also see that in the 12 - 13 hundreds, there was a spike in temperature that then declined, only to go up again before declining into what was called the "Little Ice Age" in the 18 - 19 hundreds. These two peak high and lows were “naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean." Humans had nothing to do with these changes.

Plant Growth - Slides 22, 23, 25: These slides show how in recent years, with CO2 emissions growing, so has the growth rate of plants. Slide 22 is talking about the growth of tree ring widths. Slide 23 shows that the United States' forests have grown 40% in the past 50 years. Slide 25 shows the growth of dry wheat, wet wheat, oranges, orange trees, and young pine trees at three different CO2 levels. The first graph compares plant growth at 295 ppm of CO2 to 383 ppm of CO2. The second graph compares plant growth at 295 ppm of CO2 to 600 ppm of CO2. According to this data, the more CO2, the more plant growth there is. Which does make sense, for CO2 is like plant food. Without CO2, plants would die.

Glaciers - Slides 2, 12: Slide 2 shows the shortening of glaciers over time. It also shows the growth in CO2 emissions. When you look at this graph, you can see that the upward slope started before we started using fuels such as coal, oil and gas. Slide 12 shows the increase in sea level, the shortening in glaciers, and rise in carbon levels. Much like in slide 2, it can be seen that the upward trends started over a hundred years before increases in CO2.

Sea Level - Slide 11: The graph on slide 11 depicts the changes in sea level as well as the growing carbon usage. The two are not directly related, because as the change in carbon usage goes up at different rates - spiking in some places, and then rising slower in others - but the sea levels have a gradual slope that doesn't change.

Tornados - Slide 8: This graph states that although carbon levels have increased six-fold while tornado occurrences have decreased 43%.

Rainfall - Slide 7: According to this graph, yes rainfall is increasing, but it is only increasing 1.8 inches every 100 years. Rainfall increase is not something we need to worry about if it is rising such a slow rate.

Solar Activity - Slide 3: This graph compares three different things; solar activity, arctic air temperature and carbon usage. When you look at it, you can see that lines for solar activity and arctic air temperature correlate with one another, which they should. If the sun is more active, the air temperature, logically, would then go up. If those two things are compared to the carbon usage levels, it does not correlate. The lines for carbon usage go up at a pretty steady rate, though rising faster in some places than others. The lines for solar activity and arctic air temperature look nothing like the carbon usage, which in turn proves that CO2 emissions do not affect air temperature.

Here is the homepage for the petition project: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

OISM homepage: http://www.oism.org/s32p1848.htm here you can read more about the Institute and the people involved.