http://icecap.us/index.php
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/
Just a few for starters.
Even you must concede the rank hypocrisy of that statement.
You are on an AV forum (you know, the stuff that uses energy thereby killing the planet) and all you seem to post is links to ill-informed, materially inaccurate, drivel to support a rapidly discredited lost cause.
More cheek than an elephant's arse. 
Some good stuff here from folks who are technically very knowledgeable.
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showforum=88
But everyone is on my side - the scientific community, the governments of the world - even the repressive chinese, and the USA! I'm not too worried about obtaining a quorum (which already exists). I'm more worried about the degree of the public's appetite for change, not the validity of the science, which is already established.
Site owned and operated by Joseph D'Aleo, who is funded by Exxon.
Funded by Exxon Mobil.
There's no correlation with sunspots and global warming. You seriously think that the IPCC and the ENTIRE WORLD just missed sunspots in their analysis?

Has it ever occurred to you as to why so many geologists post this GW denial rubbish? It's because geologists mainly work for oil companies!!
(ps. Watts is a good friend of Stephen McIntyre, who is funded by...you guessed it...Exxon Mobil!)
If so, source of funds is no contradictor of evidence and most of what the site displays is not created by him or Exxon.
The historical record is clear that there is a fairly fast link between changes in global temperature and in solar cycle length and/or the intensity of the cycle in terms of sunspots. Reputable researchers are in the process of looking for the mechanism so the ENTIRE WORLD has not missed it. It was simply ignored by politically biased manipulators and so far the politicians have been taken in.
Recent global temperature shifts including the warming spell that has now ended do correlate very well with solar cycle lengths and intensity.
It only needs a few more years to resolve the issue so just give it time.
The AGW lobby is already under pressure on the issue.
Yes please, it would be a most interesting learning experience for you to educate me. Click to expand... I'll try, though I suspect it may be an uphill struggle. I suggest you start by looking here. You will note that religious belief (the kind you appear to favour) is based on having a single idea about how the world works, which no amount of contradictory evidence can shift. Scientific belief, on the other hand, is based on accumulating experimental evidence, bound together with an explanatory theory.
I think you may have formed the wrong idea about how this works. It isn't sufficient that for every link to evidence-based science that I post, you post a contradictory opinion from some nutter's blog.
You might as well berate me for existing. The site owner set up this sub-forum in the hope that people would discuss ways of reducing their carbon footprint. Living in caves and consuming no energy is not an option for human civilisation (the clue is in the word civilisation). It is indeed unfortunate that we have to spend much of our time trying to explain the underlying science to those who cannot or will not understand it, but that has been the case since the forum's inception. They come, they linger for while, and then they go, these denialists.
Perhaps you would like to point out which of the links I have provided contain "ill-informed, materially inaccurate, drivel", otherwise people might think you are just full of the usual denialist hot air.
What makes you think the "warming spell" has now ended? Or do I have to attempt (once again) to explain the concept of natural variability to you?
And of course, there is no such correlation. Faked graphs in Durkin's film don't count.
Your definition of natural variability is ' a convenient short term excuse for failure'.
I'm not relying on Durkin.
Short, intense solar cycles warm the globe.
Longer less intense solar cycles cool the globe.
The mechanism involves the El Nino/ La Nina phenomenon so that a predominamce of the former results in warming and a predominance of the latter results in cooling.
The precise mechanism is now the subject of intense investigation but it is most likely that El Nino/ La Nina is the primary mechanism for transmitting increases or decreases in solar energy and therefore heat into the atmosphere.
The global temperature record is now diverging from the CO2 record and if it continues to do so the fears about AGW will die.
No, it's an acknowledgement of a fundamental reality about the way the earth's climate system operates. It cannot be wished away.
Who then? Svensmark again? Where's the data? I can recall at least 3 recent papers re-affirming the absence of a link between solar activity and global warming, and yet still you cling to it.
Those are primarily re-distributive processes.
I think you mean that there is no mechanism, and the proponents of solar forcing are trying desperately to invent one. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, please give me a link to some of this "intense investigation".
Wishful and erroneous thinking.