All you did was ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominen, and poisoning the well. By the way, those aren't compliments those are fallacies.
Those supercomputers that are being used are doing the worst case situation. I probably should remind you of what Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, said about the credibility of those generated computer models. I could easily say that a few of your organizations are liberial think-tanks, but I won't because that DOESN'T DISCREDIT SOMEONE'S CLAIM 100% of the time. NASA climate data has had several errors/mistakes a la 1934 was the hottest year in U.S.
I'll supply more peer-reviewed journals as well since you have a love feitish for them. Don't get me wrong I enjoy reading them but they are not infalliable. As you stated with an ad hominen about Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, if what you typed is true, his article did get published in a peer-reviewed journal (Energy and Environment), so you have a conundrum here. Also, there have been investigations/lawsuits to several peer-review for being overly bias so just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean its infallable.
Your comment about someone not getting something published the first time is highly illogical. Obviously, you've never sent something in to a journal. Research doesn't always get in on the first try. Even though you don't know who the author (s)(this is pertaining to the whole review process that a papers goes through. After being reviewed by peers the editor has the final say) are usually you've read enough of the materials from (in that field) that journal that you can tell who the authors are (we each have our own writing styles) or just use a little detective work, so with that tidbit of knowledge one does have the opportunity to be biased or some people have a very competitive nature which they'll disregard the research. In Academia, most professors/researches have to have so many articles published in X amount of time and on top of that some universities want you to have it published in some of the more 'prestigous' journals.
With that said here you go some more journals:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/?p=730c2f15f6a74e579386e4a91b32f300&pi=0&hl=u
They found that global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years and “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7233/abs/nature07770.html
Here the evidence supports a scenario in which thresholds of meltwater from Northern ice sheets are periodically passed and the large dilution of the high latitude waters dilutes the salty surface waters of the Atlantic conveyer circulation, effectively and rapidly switching it off for a period. The high Northern latitudes cool abruptly while the reduced transfer of heat to the high Northern latitudes results in warming of the Southern oceans. In other words this is not a global warming phenomenon but is a massive and rapid change in the heat distribution of the Earth. The hemispheres respond in antiphase with a see-saw redistribution of heat due to large and rapid changes in ocean currents.
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
"“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex." One can be lead to postulate that the same thing is happening on mars.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml
The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle"
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4048902
"Recent results have indicated strong correlations between climate parameters and solar activity. Upper troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have been found to vary in phase with the 10- to 12-year solar activity cycle. On a longer time scale, the global temperature, particularly the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, has been found to be nearly perfectly correlated with the long-term variation of solar activity."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55..158R
This article was a fantastically interesting read because they used tree rings and they believe that the impact is from sollar activity and there's a cycle! Yet another articles says the earth's climate goes in a cycle!
You brought up mars here's neptune for you (we are not causing the situation on mars with what you stated about mars again shows that its has to do with the sun/solar system) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
"If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment." The fact with mars leads me to believe that it has something to do with the solar system.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961JGR....66..273S
This one found that there was a correlation of carbon-14 and sunspots. " Change in carbon-14 activity during these periods was inverse to change in solar activity in 22 of 24 instances (P
.001)." I'm not sure if you've done any research/submitted an article you want a p to be that small that's an EXCELLENT finding.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AdSpR..20..913F
A good read once again!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Dr. Spencer was a former NASA scientist. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent,At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade."
Here is another article by Dr. Spencer, except this one isn't peer-reviewed (wah wah waa) http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/ "Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions" He actually gives his email address at the bottom if you want to challenge him.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
The rate of world sea level rise was greater during the first half of the 20th Century than during the second half. I thought the glaciers were melting at a exceptionally high rate? Wait hmmmm what's going on? Oh its a political ploy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529
Speaking of how Greenland and Artic are melting so fast let's take a look at that. Here they did and they found that "the ice mass imbalance currently contributes about 0.35 mm/year to world average sea-level rise (a rate of about 1.4 inches per century)." 1.4 inches a century!! Better roll them there pants up the flood is coming!!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007EO180001.shtml
"The link between the frequency of tropical cyclones [hurricanes] and anthropogenic global warming has become an emerging focus. However, an analysis of the data shows that improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones" They're saying that its due to the increased monitoring of hurricanes! SO IT IS MANMADE!
I could go on... I would greatly appreciate it if you stop espousing "EVERY legitimate scientific body. Every one. That's a lot. INIDIVIDUAL scientists claim that they don't, but these people are a tiny minority (less than 1%)" unless you're going to back that up with a fact. Because all it does is make you look like a lepton. Less than 1%. Now if p<.001 is true then that would be an outstanding amazling correlation. I've posted articles upon articles at first and all you did was adhominim them. Then you stated you only wanted peer-reviewed (which I did give you some) and how I wasn't backing up what I said. And Its just a right-wing nut jobs of the republician party. Most of those people that I gave you teach at Ivy league schools and having gone to an Ivy League schools the right-wingers that teach there are few and far-between. This of course is not an exhaustive study done on my part.
I am basically through with this palaver.