From John Rennie (SciAm):
"The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watt/square-meter—less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade Earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation." "The most recent contrarian fad is based largely on work by Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark, who argues that the sun's influence on cosmic rays needs to be considered. Cosmic rays entering the atmosphere help to seed the formation of aerosols and clouds that reflect sunlight. In Svensmark's theory, the high solar magnetic activity over the past 50 years has shielded Earth from cosmic rays and allowed exceptional heating; but now that the sun is more magnetically quiet again, global warming will reverse. Svensmark claims that, in his model, temperature changes correlate better with cosmic ray levels and solar magnetic activity than with other greenhouse factors. Svensmark's theory has so far not persuaded most climatologists, however, because of weaknesses in its evidence. In particular, there do not seem to be clear long-term trends in the cosmic ray influxes or in the clouds that they are suppose to form, and his model does not explain (as greenhouse explanations do) some of the observed patterns in how the world is getting warmer (such as that more of the warming occurs at night). For now, at least, cosmic rays remain a less plausible culprit in climate change.' "And the apparent warming seen on Mars? It is based on a very small base of measurements, so it may not represent a true trend. Too little is yet known about what governs the Martian climate to be sure, but a period of heavy dust storms on the planet that made its surface relatively dark might have increased the amount of absorbed sunlight and raised temperatures."

Of course andy1 will be only to glad to pay the exorbitant increase in power costs attributed to the ETS sham, big sars.
He will be the first to bitch and complain that the Rudd government is using the figures in Copenhagen, Kyoto 1 & 2 to justify price increases and you know that they’re gunna be doozies, even though never being signatories.
Get real with your solar figures this and mars figures that you’re just a Looney and he more you search for figures to justify yourself the loonier you get.

Andy1, commenting on his own article, "Copenhagen: the price of climate change", quotes Will Steffen's report for the Department of Climate Change as a source of authority.

The report's title is pure propaganda: Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks.

This is what the report itself says:

"The Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person's or group's interpretations, deductions, conclusions, or actions in relying on this material."

On one hand, Steffen's quoted as an authority; on the other, neither he nor the people who paid good [taxpayers'] money for his alleged "expertise" are prepared to take responsibility for anything he has written. The report is useless and has no credibility. They blew our dough.

Has there ever been a more vacuous scam than AGW?

Andy1(55)
..."magnetic"..."Mars"...
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty!

KenH(35) suggested we pry a little bit into history.

1.Any electrical engineer will advise you magnetic phenomena can"not"(Baz 52) be dissociated from electric currents. For lay people, a little bit confused, check out Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Nobel Peace prize winner Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt. But to save the hassle, why leave out our own fair dinkum Aussie Wal Thornhill who's leading the
charge to the new 21st century paradigm, the electric universe?

2. ..."Mars"...Andy, why did you omit Venus? The "great" James Hansen wrote his doctoral thesis on the climate of Venus...which brings us fairly and squarely to the most disgusting episode in the 20th century which continues to this day. Carl Sagan was a prime originator
of the greenhouse theory as an ad hoc response to the failure of orthodox science to predict
the hot Venus.

It should not be forgotten, we humble human beings have a right to choose.

shmuel

P.S. May I suggest in the interests of honesty, sincerity and efficiency, that the OLO powers that be number Forum comments (55, etc. as above), in order of posting to facilitate dialogue
and debate.
s.w.(shmuel wilkonski)

shmuel,

I'd been thinking exactly that over the weekend - the comments would be much easier to track and retrieve over time if they were numbered. OLO editors, please note.