On the other hand...

Here's some more reading.

Here's the first thing I read which was both approachable, technical and referenced well.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 Which doesn't go gung ho against the hockey stick graph, but offers a good framework for other data to compare against it.

http://www.geotimes.org/sept06/NN_Climate.html
"In 2005, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the House energy committee, requested that Edward Wegman, a statistician at George Mason University in Virginia, form an ad hoc committee to examine the statistical methods used to form the hockey stick. Following that request, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chair of the House science committee, requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) look into the same issue. NAS released its report in June; Wegman’s committee released its report in July.

Wegman’s team — which looked only at the statistical methods involved in the hockey stick analysis to determine if the conclusions were well-founded — wrote that the “assessments that the decade of the 1990s
was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported.” Wegman testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 18 that Mann’s team’s methods were flawed and that the team did not adequately consult statisticians on the work.

Additionally, Wegman’s team reported that the peer review on the original papers was inadequate and took issue with how “interconnected” the paleoclimate community is, writing that the community has a
“self-reinforcing feedback mechanism.” Wegman testified, however, that his team was not asked to look at whether or not the climate is actually warming, and thus the team made no conclusions on that facet of the
discussion. "

Which points out that although there is lots of debate about the hockey stick graph and it's validity, there is now more focus on how to address warming and the possible consequences. ie - they've moved from cause to
solution without understanding cause, which could lead to incorrect reactions and probably will lead to unforeseen results.

For a real "anti-CO2" paper read:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html but that looks soooo like something done by the oil companies I can't bear it, but it's still interesting to note the effect of water vapour vs CO2

For actual measured CO2 growth rates:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf
and
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
This shows the constant rise of CO2 levels, but we do not see the same constant growth rate in temperature, in fact of the last 50 years measured values more than 20 of those years have seen drops in mean annual
temperature compared to the previous years.

For a clearer and less manipulated image of surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere than shown on the hockey stick graph, http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf This is the conclusion by the congress committee cited in the previous e-mail, but as shown here, although it agrees with the general conclusion of the team of Mann et all, it does not support their entire assumptions or specific conclusions. Importantly it shows clearly extremely warm periods in almost all predictors pre-dating any significant CO2 rise.

The argument regarding the little ice age and medieval warm period are supported from studies such as:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N48/EDIT.jsp
Showing that it was not just a European phenomenon.

For evidence of CO2 vs temperature relationships we can look at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
but even here they are uncertain whether CO" causes temperature rise or if temperature rise causes CO2 concentrations to increase. But unarguably, the earlier CO2 rises can not be attributed to human industrial
revolutions.

Moving onto what might cause global temperature variation other than greenhouse gasses:
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
is a little technical
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf
Is a hilarious paper which states that solar activity is not responsible and concludes that therefore humanity must be... yeah, there's sound logic. So this paper can probably be ignored as at best, incomplete.
http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html
an equally unbelievably positive paper

But solar activity is shown in this last reference I'll give:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Which is both a clearly biased argument and also an informative document assuming nothing in it is a lie, such as the extract on Michael Mann (co-author of the Hockey Stick graph): "Michael Mann

At the time he published his `Hockey Stick' paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year later
was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of 34.

He is now the Lead Author of the `Observed Climate Variability and Change' chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann's paper, said: "The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year."

Mann is also now on the editorial board of the `Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of `Climatic Change'. He is also a `referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).

He was appointed as a `Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.

Mann lists his `popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17]."

So if you need to look for someone with something to loose from CO2 increases being shown to be caused by temperature rise rather than the other way around, look no further.