Have to make practical post once again. Whole theory sound as “what if” one. Article has started with assumptions and finished with assumptions.
It is not likely that human population can significantly affect natural climate change cycles or if we could, then better not play with it. What we can do is to reduce negative effect of human activity locally but much attention paid by theoretics. Everyone wants to make theories and conclusions that not possible to verify or where not possible to see the end result. That is of course interesting but ,OLO or not OLO, sorry no belief that “what if” is scientific approach.

'The deluded lap it up, like mana from heaven, without thinking thorough the obvious - perhaps I'm being unkind and they are just so fixated in their religious denialist scientology beliefs, that they don't think unless one of their high pristes tells them to do so.'

with apologies to Amicus for the one-word change.

VK3AUU (David) said: "The deniers seem to be quite oblivious of the fact that ice is melting all around the globe. "

David have a look at the Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Antarctic ice has been on the increase for over thirty years; you don't hear about it because it doesn't fit the AGW plot.

Remember, it's always the end of the world as we know it (for some reason). At the moment it's CO2 - an invisible, life-sustaining gas.

The responses to this article show how popular the idea that all the people who study climate are wrong is - or is it a matter of how loud a relatively small number of people who think the science is wrong are? As far as science goes, AGW stands as solidly or more solidly than ever despite the various claims that it's somehow seriously flawed. No scientific arguments are needed to believe the wholly unsupported orthodoxy that the Earth's climate can't be changed by anything humanity does, just an ongoing belief in the sciency sounding arguments of the high priests of climate change denial. Most of the 'irrefutable' claims I've been reading here crumble with even minimal efforts to find out from actual climate scientists or their publications. Sorry but getting all your 'science' from blogs that are advocates for the non-existence of AGW and who select and interpret climate science with bias doesn't count as anything but listening only to what you want to hear.
I'll take the scientists and institutions that actually study climate and the critiques by real experts like the US National Academy of Sciences - real scepticism properly applied - over the sciency sounding arguments of scientific hacks like Carter or mining company directors like Plimer.

Anthony
sure.. just to correct one impression.. I mentioned the breakdown from 1985 to be fair to Lockwood et al.. There have been plenty of counter arguments. The correlation between solar and the last couple of decades is far from clear cut but that may well be because the data for those decades is far higher resolution that previous decades so we are seeing the complications.. In other words it is possible Lockwood is just putting on a rearguard action.. However, even as it stands the Lockwood paper basically destroys the greenhouse case, as all the forecasts now have to be withdrawn and completely re-cast. It acknowledges that there is another climate factor.

The following quotes have been extracted from the Institute of Physics evidence to the UK Parliament. The London based IOP has a membership of 36,000.

“2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions”

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges: those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.