Part of? Try ALL OF.

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

The climate, like much of damn near everything on this planet, has cycles that it goes through. Warm, cool, warm, cool, warm, cool. The evidence to prove this can be found in any true scientific journal. Greenland was named such because when Eric the Red found it, it was GREEN, not the ice-covered lump of rock that it is today. At one point, there was a massive lake over the northern states like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas. The water was held in by a massive ice dam in what is now the Bitteroot Mountains. Why isn't that ice damn in existance today? Gosh, because the planet got warmer? Without SUV's and airplanes? What a friggin' concept!

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

WARNING! MAY CONTAIN ACTUAL SCIENCE! Let's say you have a system or theory that you want to test. How can you test this system or theory to prove that it's accurate? Here's an option - take a set of data for which you already have a result, and run it through the system. Let's say you already know that a + b = c. If you test the system or theory, you run your data through it, and instead of a + b = c, you get a + b = moonbeams out your ass, it's a damn good indicator that the system or theory has quite a few problems.

Manmade Global Warming is horsecrap. If the Earth is warming up, it's because of natural cycles. Or perhaps it might be that GIGANTIC FUCKING THERMONUCLEAR EXPLODING THINGY IN THE CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM! But those people screaming about how we're going to all DIE if we don't stop using oil RIGHT NOW are full of crap.