Sorry, but no. There were 10 links, I'm on dial-up, and only 30-40 minutes before work. For each article, one would also need to follow up, by reading the references in the bibliography, and check the author out, and see if he's biased in anyway. Only takes a few minutes to run a search through google, but could take hours to read and check all the points being made.So what part did you disagree with? Did you even read any of the articles?
Are you a contract lawyer or something? Seems burying the truth under a pile, comes quite easily for you. Anyway, I believe in the very first post of this thread, the OP clearly stated 'discussion' not a debate. I don't how credible any of these people are, for who you cite. We have business men, lawyers, and politicians all devoted to this cause, almost as many as scientist who support the hypothesis. It's just a tough one to buy into. The planet has gone through some very radical climate changes in the span of my life time. Even if we could do everything right, as the green team dictates, would a volcano or two kind of offset any efforts we make? I lived in Oregon during Mount St. Helens, and that wasn't even considered a major eruption, like in some parts of the world.
It should be obvious that, even if mankind could stop releasing much of their contribution of CO2, it'll have little effect on a global scale. We don't control the world, only live here. The ice will continue to melt, oceans will rise, lakes and rivers dry up (haven't figured out that one yet). It's natural and normal, whether we take credit for it or not, it'll keep going just the same.