Sun’s Contribution to Warming

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

I mean, it's classic.

The weaknesses of the AGW paradigm are:

· It is based on agenda-driven science

I see. Unlike say, yourself. But where's your backup for this? Why is the science on this subject more "agenda driven" than research in malaria, or cancer, or aerodynamics or bacterial ecology?? You have tens of thousands of people working in the field. The AGU, which has an unequivocal statement on the issue, has 50,000 members, almost all working scientists. But they have an "agenda?" What is it?

It is based on computer model projections that suffer from the GIGO problem

It will come as a gigantic shock to you, off in your bubble, that very few areas of current science do not use computer modeling in greater or lesser degree. You'd be even more amazed to learn that the people doing it are completely aware of the need to keep comparing model output with real observations. You have no specifics, but you're sure they don't know what they're doing. But only in this one area, climate change. If we're designing a plane or doing materials science modeling to create a new alloy, that's perfectly all right.

It has not been validated by physically observed data

Oh really??? Again, the specialists in the field disagree. And you have no back up. But we have to believe them instead of you.

It relies upon measurements that are, themselves, so “massaged” that they are non-transparent and subject to manipulation

Which can be detected in the peer review process you detest, (below) and is when it happens. But you still think a blanket, no-backup smear beats the judgement of the National Academies??

It relies on an ineffectual and in-bred “peer review” process

Love this. Yes, like all other science, climate studies are peer reviewed. But the process is only wrong when its done in climate study? If so, why? If not, why not? What's your alternative? Just have (say) the President's office decide what studies stand up and which should be rejected??

You're a crank. A stone, died in the wool scientific crank. Ten years ago you'd be talking about your sugar cure for cancer. Get a life.

Global Warming to Decrease Hurricanes, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080519-hurricanes.html

Global warming linked to increase of hurricanes

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article567156.ece

Look, good buddy, I know you're working really hard, doing all this cutting and pasting of stuff you don't understand but agree with so it must be right, but you're really running on empty with this:

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

As I've already posted, several times, the American Geophysical Union, which recently strengthened its warning about human caused climate change, is an organization of 50,000 scientists in the field from all over the world. They are quite sure, in their educated opinion, that people are changing climate, with potentially catastrophic results. But we're supposed to ignore what they say because 60 people write a letter disagreeing?? And you expect people to take you seriously?

ps - why not cut and past an article from the Onion. It's just as credible as the stuff you're spamming this site with.

It's been a very difficult year inside the global warming cult. Not only was there record snow and cold across the globe, but one of the prestigious global warming religionists is being accused of fraud.

Doug Keenan wrote in with this:

Following are some remarks about my exposé, “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”.

Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research on climate for over 30 years, and he has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles. He has also received an Appreciation Plaque from the Office of Science in the U.S.A., commending him, “For your insightful counsel and excellent science. …”. The plaque resulted in particular from his research on global warming.

I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline. (This web page will be updated with news about the case, as the investigations progress.)

It's been a rough go for the GW religionists lately.

http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

manacker: "Read p. 7 of the Krivova + Solanki study which summarizes results from several prior studies including Fröhlich & Lean and Willson et al.:

“From the figures` we concluded that, if variability of the solar total irradiance is the main channel of the solar influence on climate” [i.e. ignoring the Svensmark hypothesis of cosmic ray flux impact on cloud formation as a solar influence on climate] “then less than 30% (50% in the Willson composite) of the dramatic temperature rise since 1970 can be attributed to the sun.”

Note here that it is Krivova & Solanki who are interpreting data from a 1997 study by Willson - that is neither the 2003 Willson report nor the 2007 Willson report that you cited. In those, later Willson reports (the 2007 Willson report, of course, being 10 years later) that you cited Willson himself makes no such claim.

So you found one reference that states, deep in the paper, that data from 1997 put an upper bound of "less than" 50% -- and in other data sets at "less than" 30% -- of the temperature rise since 1970 can be attributed to the sun.

Nice tree - now let's get back to the forest:

The very first paper you cited in your list, which included one of the same authors (Solanky) puts all this in proper perspective:

We stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades... even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.

That is in complete agreement with the quote from RealClimate.org -- you know, the site that you derided as "alarmist junk science" -- that I provided to debunk the non-scientifically-based notion that the sun is likely be the primary driver of current global warming. Here that quote is again:

RealClimate.org:

The sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades

I hope this clears up your confusion, manacker.