What a breath of fresh "cooling" air in what has become a heated and uninformed debate. The author's credentials and practical experience deserve respect.

Christopher Monckton in his piece in the "Sunday Telegraph" 5 Nov 2006, has a reference to a .pdf "discussion calculations and references" which I doubt many have bothered to read; pity, because it contains some interesting scientific pointers to an underlying cause that is not greenhouse gas emissions or Co2. He posits the question:

"What role has the Sun played in recent warming?"

His reference "(Solanki and Fligge(2003) deduced that in the past half century the Sun has been hotter, and for longer, than at any time in the past 11,400 years" is worth following up. His conclusion: "...that the Sun is very likely to have contributed rather more to the past century's warm period than the UN has assumed, and that assumptions about the contribution of greenhouse gases to warming should be revised downwards accordingly"

I was taught by IBM "never assume it makes an ass out of you and me", and would discount the UN view accordingly, especially as it contains data that has been shown to be scientifically flawed. Any suggestions as to how we can turn down the Sun's heat will be read with interest and skepticism.
Richard42

Will someone please send out the contractors to lasoo them NewZealund icebergs.

Its like the old saying: Water water everywhere, but nary a drop to drink.

A thoughtful and valuable article.

Climate/weather is a staggeringly complex issue. The idea that human produced Carbon Dioxide is the 'cause' of global warming ALL BY ITSELF is childishly simplistic.

I am reminded of the old saw that 'every problem has a simple solution. And it is always wrong'.

A very common way of arguing is never to deny or admit anything just keep plugging away with ideas some of which may have value as a question to be considered, many just argumentative, others with deliberate intent.
Climate change has been argued thus. The deliberate intent to refute delay or disrupt has been vociferous. The parties involved have used as reference ‘opinion’ from those having no expertise in the area. Demeaning of those with honest endeavour and credential to impressive to ignore as being self serving creating their own jobs.
A criticism which with some validity might be levelled at say advertising for here untruth distortion is excused as necessary for the economic paradigm prevailing.
So to here. The Telegraph report has been dismissed by scientists as has the Climate lobby and other popular commentators.
That is the points raised have been addressed and found wanting.
I would need to go back and check that Lake Eire algal blooms and eutrophication was due to CO2.rather than phosphorous, I doubt. This exemplifies the above. The author quotes expertise and therefore must be checked.
Sure some contamination is due to natural factors. DDT has I think proved to have detrimental effects on the ecology and granted the jury is still out on humans, age, state of nutrition amongst other factors need to be considered when asking is it safe.
The point is made that interfering with natural events, made over long periods of time and surviving only because such events were a compromise amongst all the contending factors operating, can be dangerous , to us!. Change one of these factors and consequences unfavourable to us can ensue.
So the sun’s energy output could have changed it has in the past the Earths orbit could have altered , water vapour content could have increased and be causal.
Scientists have considered these and available evidence is they are not causal factors.
In all such debates one must ask who wins and who loses by the delay or change consequent.
Is the climate lobby really dead or is some profit yet to be made?

I was going to shell out to buy a greenhouse to grow tomatoes. Now I realise it's not the greenhouse but something else. Guess I'll save my money.

There is nothing new about climate change being complex. Nothing new at all.

Climate scientists know all about the complexity and the multiple variables feeding into it. That's exactly why is has taken so long to get the science right.

The IPCC and Al Gore's film have necessarily had to convey the nub of the problem, the whole population can not, and can't be expected to delve into the whole complex stuff that feeds into climate change.

But the absolute consensus that has emerged from the scientific community is the climate change is real; we humans are the major cause; carbon dioxide (amongst a number of other pollutants) is a major culprit; cutting back on these emissions is essential in order to stabilise our planetary atmosphere; if we don't we are in big trouble.

As amateur scientists each one of us is apt to interpret the science to suit our desired stance on the issue, but as An Inconvenient Truth went to some pains to point out, the scientific community is not at loggerheads over these major findings.

Because there are very large vested interests at stake there are, of course, some challenges to the consensed view, but no peer-reviewed science articles can stand a chance against the insurmountable evidence that has piled up to the proverbial ceiling.