Wilkins ice shelf breaking away?

Yes, and if you understood paleoclimatology you would know that they were correct, and you would also know that if someone were to argue 'climate change is nonsense because they used to say we're entering an ice age', that they didn't know what they were talking about.

If you want to understand climate science, atmospheric chemistry and paleaoclimatology then you will need to do more than read newspapers and nonsense websites, or listen to the bloke waffling on about it in your office.
I don't like elitism, but if you want to be able to even begin to understand these issues you have to go and learn about them at a level where you can understand the basic concepts. Up until then your opinion is free to be voiced, but it is, like religion and fantasy, baseless.

I need a bit of clarification. To accept global warming theory requires only to look at a few graphs or watch an Al Gore film. To refute it requires schooling in some seriously acedemic specialist subjects? That's a difficult one for sure.

Global warming appears to be an irrefutable fact. That's global small G, as in the observation of increased recorded temperatures. I understand that the mechanism that is driving this remains as yet unproven. To me this is where the argument goes awry, a valid observation being tied to an unproven theory of its cause.`I'm being quite specific in my understanding of the proof of theories here; I'm not in any way saying that the those mechanisms espoused are shite.

Feel free to enlighten me with some choice material or links, though I must warn you that I went to work at 17 so keep it as light as possible please.

As to bringing religion into it, I see what you did there you canny fellow.