I admit I am not too bright, but . . .

I think common sense is with me on anthropogenic carbon based global warming.  The Romans called it lex parsimoniae.  William of Ockham named a razor after it (not really, but you get my point).  Either way, mankind has intuitively known since the dawn of civilization that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible and should be assumed to be correct unless and until evidence is presented to prove it false.  Enron, Soros, Gore and everyone else who hoped to, has and is profiting tremendously from the global warming fraud has convinced people to buy into a Rube Goldberg theory about man's carbon output causing the world to warm.  Being not too bright, I think that the earth's temperatures are more likely directly correlated to, oh I don't know, maybe the source of heat energy--i.e. the sun.  The boys at the Met Office and the University of East Anglia very quietly released data from 30,000 measuring stations showed that global warming stopped (even by their interpretations of the data) in 1997.

 Their explanation for this inconvenient truth is that the solar cycle is waning, but do not worry!  By their model, atmospheric carbon has a greater influence on temperatures that the radiant energy from the sun.

Even the rats appear to be jumping off of the AGW ship, or at least they are questioning which side of Occam's Razor things are falling on.  The Daily Mail has a great piece:

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Allow my simple, not too bright mind to translate: Earth's temperatures are driven primarily by the source of the heat.