Actually, I didn't cite any figures. All I said was that the (solar) magnetic field varies - we know that.

Ok Mark, have to agree to disagree - yet again :(

Am looking forward to reading your book.
Good luck with it.

Mark, I don't understand why "something is seriously wrong with the whole theory and the IPCC had to ignore a major slab of established science saying that CO2 only hangs in the air five to seven years."

Carbon cycles through the biosphere, just like everything else. But if you put more in than comes out, what happens?

Just because most of the cells in your body get replaced in about a year or so, doesn't mean that you can't get fat.

I too will be interested to see this book of yours, should be a ripper read.

I am constantly surprised about the division that this issue causes among bloggers! For me, this appears to be a well reasoned report about what is happening in our solar system - it gets saved in my global warming file - another well reasoned report that tends to make the opposing comments fade into global hystericism. If the global hystericists want to get my attention, please give me some SCIENCE to refute this report

"If the global hystericists want to get my attention, please give me some SCIENCE to refute this report"

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2010/01/epn20101p27.pdf

"Conclusions
In our view the jury is back and the verdict is that cosmic rays and solar irradiance are not guilty for most of the Global Warming. Nevertheless, they could be responsible for a contribution and we look forward to future experiments such as CLOUD at CERN which should be able to quantify to what extent ionization plays a part in the production of aerosols, the precursors of cloud formation."

CJ

Methinks this was a draft of his failed application for Bolt's job.

examinator