Nine out of ten US weather stations will report warming over the relevant period. Sadly, this is due primarily to technical faults in the weather stations, not to global warming. Either they are sited in places which have developed heat sources, or they are constructed of materials that intensify the effect of heat over time, or the data was "adjusted" by the NOAA to make a record the way they wanted it. In other words, the data presented by NOAA is unreliable far in excess of the sensitivity needed to report the minor warming that has been alleged: it's garbage. It is possible that the record in other countries is better done: but I'd like to see them do the work, first.
2. The CO2 model has problems when you do the math.
The runaway warming forecast by alarmists contradicts basic physics. I admit the paper takes a while to read ("a while" meaning about a week's study until I could do the work it describes, but then I've always been a bit slower on complex mathematics). If you'd like a popular summary instead, check this out. It's cuter and saves time. The research was backstopped recently by this paper, though I haven't read it enough to duplicate it yet. There is no runaway global warming, no forcing.
3. Really doing the science causes problems for the IPCC model.
The predictions for this decade do not match the reality. And models which fail to predict the past results aren't usually worth relying on for future results.
4. On the other hand, semi-famous judges with a penchant for economics have decided that they are climate experts, and it is all proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and those who disagree are kooks.
I guess I'm a kook. I like logic too much to give it up when important people say to.