Andrew - if you are going to come out with this stuff then at least you need to ackowledge the current debate. It is now widely acknowledged that solar magnetic changes have driven earth climate in geological times. If you don't believe me here is the paper that basically conceeds the point for the global warming side.
The paper is by Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and Claus Frolich, of the word radiation centre in Davos, Switzerland. 'Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007 - its available online).
The paper does not try to contest the evidence that the sun and climate were strongly linked in pre-industrial times and even in the first half of the twentieth century. One key work is that of Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Oservatory of Clombia University and nine others which convincingly linked solar activity to changes in drift ice in the North Atlantic over thousands of years (Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, December 7, 2001).
For heaven sake Andrew look it up, and then tailor your arguments to suit the reality. Then I'll pay attention. At the moment the article is seriously out of date.

I wonder what this bloke's smoking? It must be pretty damn good.

He can dream up scare campaigns even quicker than Ruddy can come up with ways to throw money away.

Of couse, paying Andrew & his fellow travelers is one way of throwing money away, for no useful purpose.

Thanks Dr Glikson, clear and informative as usual.

Curmudgeon

I'm really trying to be patient, Mark - it is becoming tiresome.

Again, you really don't know how to read a scientific paper, let alone the conclusions they make:

>> 5. Conclusions

... Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the (solar) mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified. <<

Now, which part of that don't you understand?

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

I'll repeat again Mark: you are doggedly trying to show a correlation between temperature and (solar) magnetic field variations over a period when temperature, greenhouse gas forcing, and some solar magnetic field index are all going up using (by inference) a statistical attribution technique which ignores greenhouse gases AND considers only a solar magnetic field index.

If we knew zilch about how CO2 affects climate, what you have to say would be interesting. However, we know a lot about GHG’s and their effect. No amount of fiddling by you will make the physics disappear.

You say your book is coming out in June - I should look in the Sci Fi section then?

Btw, if you are going to cite a paper, you should at least get the title correct.

Actually heres the abstract to "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"

Abstract: There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

What 'debate' are you talking about Mark? And what point is conceded? That the sun can warm us up and can change the climate? Wow, that's big news.

Is it really worth bothering? The deniers have their heads firmly stuck in the sand and no amount of graphs, charts, proof or even actual consequences will convince them to pull their heads out and open their eyes. The seas could rise by metres and they would still say it is not caused by humans. Their arguments have been debunked numerous times but still they stick to their dogma. They are like the worst of religious zealots, which most of them probably are as well.