args

The sun drives the global climate

Others however disagree with Solanski et al. on whether sunspot activity correlates with temperature changes and on whether we are in the most active period for several thousand years. Muscheler et al. The link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium... The reconstruction by Solanki et al. implies generally less solar forcing during the past millennium than in the second part of the twentieth century, whereas our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. Both Muscheler and Solanski agree that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."[[Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller, Ian Snowball, 'How unusual is today’s solar activity?', Nature, 431, 1084–1087 (2004), http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf%5D%5D In other words even if the sun is having some effect the majority of climate change is still being caused by other factors of which the most likely is humans. Influence of the Sun does not seem to be so great on global warming trends. Surprisingly, even though average temperatures are still rising(the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s[[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/]].), solar activity is at a minimum, as reported by NASA in April 2009: NASA, April 1, 2009 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. [[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm]]

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

"Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns" Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any. Yes, there are those who believe that Science is all about hype, and they have done things like, scaring people about the MMR Immunisation (http://www.badscience.net...). Why do they do this? Simply, it makes them money. In my opinion, this is exactly the same thing happening in Climate Science these days. The movement supporting AGW is pulling in Billions, if not Trillions of dollars: for research (employment), for mitigation (legislation, taxes), and for advocacy groups (you know, to get the word out). Supporters of AGW don't really have much to stand on, yet, they continue on with the forecast of "doom and gloom" and the "end of the world". Looking at our short history in the United States, we have seen this before, with Religions: "10 Times The World Was Supposed To End And Didn't", http://www.businessinsider.com... Secondly, I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy. Essentially, by ignoring every argument put to him, claiming the great many of them are "logical fallacies" of one flavor or other, Mr. Merrill has employed logical fallacies of his own; a subtle form of ad-hominem, and "Staying on Message" (he is hoping that repeating the AGW mantra will be convincing, which may be why he does not include any further information with his assertions). His defense also smacks of the "Blind Loyalty" fallacy. Regardless, I will stick to the facts, and if I have space, I will deal with his accusations, or as many as I can within the limits placed upon us in this forum. Atmospheric CO2: True, this is a concern of AGW advocates. The problem is, it isn't a real problem. Any view that takes into account only the last 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 years is a "short sighted view", and ignores much of the evidence that tells us about the "normal" or "optimal" state of this planet. To assume that we can somehow stave off a natural warming cycle is simple arrogance. Further problems with Mr. Merrill's argument can be shown in what happens when you apply higher CO2 concentrations to plant life: http://www.nature.com... http://www.climatecentral.org... http://www.theresilientearth.com... http://dailycaller.com... Remember the economist, Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, to say "the science is settled"? Well, it isn't. We still have scientists arguing whether the CO2 increases happen BEFORE the warming, or AFTER. That is a pretty significant question, one that seems to be ignored by the IPCC and other AGW activists. We always hear the CO2 concentrations are causing the Earth to heat up, but if the HEAT really happens BEFORE the increase in temps, it kind of deflates that assumption. http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://icecap.us... http://www.nature.com... http://joannenova.com.au... Just because we think, as our ancestors of old, that WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (or the most important life-forms on the planet), doesn't make it so, and reality must be considered at some point. There are events out there that could cause the extinction of the Human Race: meteor, super volcano, nuclear war... Only ONE of those do we actually have control over. (Well, we might be able to "shoot down" a meteor ... maybe... ) Realistically, we must look at EVERYTHING that the Earth offers us. ALL temperature extremes, ALL variables. We know man has survived some of those extremes for the last 200,000 years... without benefit of the "industrialization" and "pollution" (CO2) that is supposedly causing the same thing to happen today as has been happening our whole history. (the dust bowl, 100 year floods, storms, droughts, etc...) Looking back, we don't see "man made CO2" at the same levels they are today in the 1600s, or the 1700s... so what caused these phenomena? What caused the Little Ice Age? Or the Medieval Warm Period? http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com... Interestingly, the name of the warm period about 6,000 years ago was called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Any guess why they call it "optimum"? http://en.wikipedia.org... This leads me to ask: 1) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the temperature of this planet. 2) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the CO2 concentration of our Atmosphere. 3) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing Sea Level. What is "normal", what is "optimal"? At what temperature is this earth, its ecosystems, and climate at their "best"? If we don't have an answer, there is no way to know what "abnormal" is. There is NO BASELINE from which we can judge. Atmospheric Ozone: Interestingly, every "doom and gloom" scenario brought about by AWG Climate Alarmists concerning CO2 has failed under scrutiny. The CO2 levels are INCREASING, yes, and the Temperatures have flat-lined. Increasing CO2 levels, and increasing Biomass in both the Oceans and on Land. Increasing CO2 levels, yet the Ozone Layer is recovering. http://www.esa.int... This is one of those "good arguments". It shows how science actually SHOULD work; as a solution, not a problem. Scientists identified the problems with the depletion of OZONE. They identified and defined a cause. We came to know and understand what was depleting the Ozone Layer. And, via the Montreal Protocol, Scientists worked to outline a way to fix it. Other areas, like CO2 levels in our atmosphere, aren't so well understood. Yet, today's scientists want to impose all kinds of restrictions, etc, in the same way as they did with Ozone, via the Kyoto Protocol, but without having a full understand of the CAUSE of the supposed warming we are experiencing. The Establishment has a mantra, "its all man-made", and they repeat it, often. Yet, there is very little evidence to support that position, unless you ignore HISTORY. In which case, you engage in a HUGE logical fallacy; Questionable Cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com... Oceanic: Mr. Merrill tries to call my pointing at the arctic and antarctic ice increase as a "logical fallacy". The problem? We have been told for years by AWG alarmists that the arctic ice is melting and will soon be gone. We have also been told that the arctic is disappearing, and with it, the Polar Bear. Anyone can pull the youtube videos, news reports, etc, that show how the Climate Alarmists have been using the logical fallacy, Appeal to Fear, to try to get us to "fall in line" and support the Establishment in their agenda driven science. What I have done by pointing out the growth in the ice sheets, is show that there is nothing new. Things are NORMAL. In the latest report, http://nsidc.org... , we see the Ice Sheet is currently within the standard deviation. It is NORMAL. AWG alarmists tried to use the Polar Bear by using the fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, along with the Appeal to Fear. Polar Bears are, after all, so very "cute". There are problems with the politicizing of Global Warming... we can see it here: http://polarbearscience.com... Something else to consider, with the past history of our planet, and the warm periods, including the aforementioned Holocene Optimum, how on earth did Polar Bears survive? Why aren't they extinct? If our simple warming, today, is enough for AWG alarmists to foretell their demise, why did they not die out when it was 4c warmer than it is today? They seem to have survived at least one but maybe 2 or more of these warm periods where arctic ice was all but gone. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This, again, shows a logical fallacy of Questionable Cause used by AWG alarmists. Real scientists have found the problem affecting the Polar Bear, (it wasn't climate change), it was MAN. They came up with laws and accords to help protect the Bears, and now their numbers are increasing (overall). Further, looking into the "storage of heat" in our oceans, the scientists are, again, baffled by the surprising lack of heat they seem to be storing. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... CO2 concentrations do rise in the Oceans, and so does the Biomass: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nature.com... http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... Another issue is the lack of proof for the deep ocean heat retention, and the lack of historic information. To make any speciulations with so little information is disingenuous at best. http://wattsupwiththat.com... And all "conclusions" made, so far, are "inconclusive". http://judithcurry.com... Alas, no space to deal with Mr. Morrell's fallacious avoidance tactics using fallacies.

Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more." airmax1227 Acceptance.