No it wasn't. Not on BABB. Nobody linked to any papers that demonstrated the Sun does not play an important role in climate change on Earth. I have asked three times (this will be the 4th) what references you have that make such a case. If it is going to take time for you to find them that is fine, I can wait. But generic references to NASA, New Scientist, and National geographic do not constitute references.

You've also suggested people here have provided such evidence. I've read no such thing. Could you provide links to the threads?

Here is a thread in which a lot of this was discussed. Numerous other threads and articles were linked to there. Take your time, but you'll find in that thread the reasons why we are skeptical of the AAGW scenario.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

So Glom insults the Europeans and uses slurs against Russians, what else is new ? At least his manners are a lot better than Project Orion's

I don't know why you keep mentioning "blackmail" or "bullying" regarding Russia's change of heart or this "corrupt" European thing. It was simply a "you scratch our back" - "we'll scratch yours" kinda thing. This kind of give-and-take is common in diplomacy. As far as Kyoto goes, it's a joke. It hasn't been irrefutably demonstrated that climate is predicated on emissions nor is the concept of major polluters (like your country among others) being exempt a logical solution for reducing emissions. I don't blame this current administration for rejecting it. My idea of a genuine treaty addressing emissions would involve all countries, no exceptions.

You keep on changing horses on this one. First you say that any suggestion of a solar-terrestrial connection is false. Then you say simply the suggestion that it is the only factor is false. Now you're back to the original one. Where was this refutation?

You blamed him for AAGW.

Based on your posting history that seems unlikely. You have repeatedly made long posts attempting to affirm the consquent. If you have an open mind, you wouldn't jump to conclusions about the cause of the observations.

These claims are not of my origin.

Affirming the consequent again. Change happens. The role the enhanced greenhouse effect plays is undetermined.

No-one has claimed that. Antarctica and other areas are cooling, but we never extended that to the whole planet or even half of it.

I never said that. Show me where I did.

That's not in dispute.

What about thirty years in the first half of the century?

Not the case with solar activity.

I haven't brought the Greens into it in ages, not since I publicly apologised for it.

The Russian Academy of Sciences still accuse Kyoto of being junk. They recommended rejecting it.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

dgruss23, it is my opinion that countries around the globe should invest in climate defences even before we solve this issue of climate change causes and whether humans or nature are responsible for the greenhouse effect. I saw a picture before perhaps it was National Geographic that illustrated its possible effects on a global level. Rising sea levels be they 1 meter, a rise of 15 feet, or as much as 50 meters will cause massive damage on a global scale. Even just a small 1.5 feet (50-centimeter) rise in sea level could cause the coastline to move 150 feet (45 meters) inland, resulting in substantial economic, social, and environmental impact in low-lying areas. In South America, Brazil and Colombia would see massive damage, the United States of America could literally be cut in two, with Sea coming in the Gulf coast, taking out Florida and flloding Nashville and going right up as far as Detroit and Lake Michigan. In Asia a lot of India, Pakistan, the Chinese cities near the Yellow Sea, Tokyo Japan, Bangladesh would see massive destruction, the Gulf of Guinea in Africa, and France, England, Poland and a lot of other areas would see great flooding. Scientific studies have shown portion of the Earth's ice sheet has the ability to cause major damage, which contains enough water to raise the worldwide sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters). The political role in the science of Greenhouse changes was brought to everyone's attention some months back when some top NASA scientists accused the whitehouse admin of trying to stifle scientific evidence for climate change, GW has since gone and done U-turn on his CO2 statements, during the G8 meeting in Scotland Bush admitted the human role on climate change but the whitehouse still hasn't given any solutions as example.

Archer17, there are observations which show that our Earth's climate is changing or that we are seeing some kind of Greenhouse effect. A worrying indicator is the significant decrease in the Arctic sea ice observed over similar periods of time. There are many ideas to the causes of climate change and I'm not sure what article or papers Manchurian Taikonaut is refering to. Neumann, H Ameden, and P Marshall wrote on the Economic cost of Greenhouse induced sea-level rise. Knud Lassen and Danish scientist Eigil Friis-Christensen found that solar activity does sometimes explain some periods of climate change but overall has a minor effect and recent solar activity fails to explain a large deviation and current rise, even Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Institute who strongly believes in solar activity, admitted that in the last 20 years Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period and it means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming. Over the past 20 years, however, the solar activity scale has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase and it was said this is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. There were also good papers by Schneider and Chen which described Carbon Dioxide and Flooding and an article by Park, Leatherman and Weggel who wrote about the Greenhouse effect and sea level rise.

If there is a huiman caused increase in global temperature, the combustion of fossil fuels is only a portion of the cause. Certainly the increase in population of ruminating animals, and overall deforestation have to play a part too. Have you seen anything that makes a clear breakdown of the fraction of the warming caused by these activities. I haven't, but I haven't really looked till now, and I'm thinking about beginning to understand this subject. So I'm looking for help on both sides.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

You're very right here antoniseb, many papers and reports I've seen think that shrinking forests and industrial waste have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million. Clearing forests, burning material and chopping down the rain forests have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Some very well respected scientists think that mankind is able to change our enviornment and human activity can cause weather effects. I had been reading a lot of those articles before, may I remind you the 'Little Ice' age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago ( the USA didn't even exist then ), today climate changes appear to be influenced by other factors. Scientists say climate changes today are caused by other factors like the combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as feed back loops from ice melts.

Apologies for the OT post -- dgruss23, I attempted to respond to your PM but your inbox is full.

Yeah I just cleared a few. I guess I need to go through and get a few more out of there.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

You're just going to appeal to authority instead of addressing any of the points I've made? I've rolled up my sleeves and explained the Sun-climate connection on a number of threads. I've also explained reasons why CO2 is not very likely to be an important climate forcer.

The 1940-1970 cooling period corresponds with a decrease in solar activity even as CO2 was increasing. Ice cores show that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by 800 years. You can't just handwave away several hundred thousand years of climate record showing that the Sun plays an important role in climate fluctuations.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

I did some digging regarding this topic after reading another GW thread a little ways back and am aware of the various arguments and the credentials of the people making them but I'm not sold. Your next post helps me explain why..I bolded the part of your post that applies to why I'm skeptical at this point. We are told by proponents of GW that our current "climate change" is different from the others, but is it really? You might think so, but I'm not so sure.

The little ice age ended "hundred and hundreds of years ago". That is still a short time ago, geologically speaking. Earth didn't heat up overnight, and ice doesn't melt that fast. So, its not surprising that glaciers and arctic ice are receding.

Particularly glaciers near the equator such as Mt. Kilamanjaro. Last I read 80% of Kilamanjaro's glaciers had disappeared in the last century.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

an appeal to authority. there are plenty of respected scientists that disagree, too.

news articles? why don't you start reading scientific papers instead. that way you won't get as much bias in the information. i'm not specifically accusing anybody of intentionally skewing information, but a writer will add in his interpretation of data. they aren't always scientists, so that bias could easily be significant.

actually, the little ice age was not completely "hundreds and hundreds" of years ago. the last minima was in 1850, and the U