Mo, the science says you are wrong. The article you presented states the opposite of what you claim. The opponents to Global Warming that used to belong to the Berkley group, have turned coat and have gone mainstream. The conclusions of the study to compare Berkley's "divergence" said the following.

"These differences need to be reported, explained and resolved before the Berkeley Earth series can be considered a credible addition to the global surface temperature record."

In other words, the report isn't credible. The disagreements with NOAA and NASA can be explained by inaccurate data, lack of credit to other major factors (like the ocean), and concentrated data from brief sources.

The actual data we have on climate spans thousands of years from ice and seabed cores, tree rings, sediment, etc. The facts are there.

basically, all i'm saying is the earth has been warmer and cooler in the last 2 billion years... governments are taking steps to limit pollutants to help, but about all we can do. I don't think it is a man made thing, but it could be.

here is an article you might like

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/249744-Researchers-Augment-Climate-Records-Using-Fossil-Pollen

Yep! Very interesting. Large droughts are also associated with the end of the Mayans and the pre-Incas.

The science says much of the warming is due to us and the result will be more droughts and less fresh water. The science says we should shift to something besides coal and natural gas to make electricity like nukes or some form of solar power (wind, wave, photocell, etc.) but solar power is too expensive. If we make electricity from nukes and used a lot more plug-in hybrid vehicles, driving would be cheap, our economy would get a huge boost by NOT sending $700 billion to the oil cartel every year, and much of the greenhouse gas c02 would be eliminated.