Don't follow the graphs . Buy Bitcoin .And overcoats.

Hey Philip S,
"I believe you are wrong, there is big money to be made if you as a scientist believe it.
If you as a scientist don't believe it, no government is funding research to prove it is false."

Well argued.
(I jumped the gun early and responded to your headline, before I read the content in your opening post
- sorry if my first comment didn't make much sense.)

"BUT to be serious how many other factors might they not know, they know about solar flares from the sun but what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect."

The following question MAY sound stupid; but it's actually intended to be stupid AND serious at the same time, and it supports your argument, well kind of, or - maybe not, I'm not sure; Well I don't actually know...

- 'Have we factored in the effects of human and animal flatulence into the climate data models' -

I personally (and what do I know) tend to think in terms of 1/ solar output 2/ earths current orbit and the degree tilt on its axis as the two main factors determining earths climate - neither of which have anything to do with us - at all; but finally 3/ yes humans can (and often do) mess stuff up.

- If anyone can turn forests into a deserts and destroy ocean breeding habitats, you guessed it, it's us.

There is no 'solution' to climate change; the climate will continue changing as it always has. Puny humans didn't cause it, nor can they they 'fix' it.

mhaze,
>Always? A touch of hyperbole there Aidan. The victory of ideology over facts.
No, I mean it. Literally always, when a scientific paper purports to invalidate the consensus view on climate, it's found to be because of errors.

That doesn't mean the papers that support the consensus are error free, though. And nor is it anything to do with ideology. It's simply because errors in dissenting papers are easier to spot - just examine the reason for the discrepancy and check the validity of the assumptions and calculations.

Note that the papers in your first link don't purport to invalidate the consensus view. As for your second link, I hope she's right as it would make the problem far less urgent. However, considering the observed breakdown of the link between temperatures and solar activity in the late 20th century, I'm far from convinced.

There is no 'solution' to climate change;
ttbn,
The Left seems to think if we all voted Labor then that'd fix climate change.

Belly
You say noone thinks the article is against AGW. However the topic starts "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. We also therefore have to assume there may be other things they do not know that would cause changes in weather and climate."

It's like saying that unknown aspects of arthritis mean that arthritis treatments don't work. It's known that radioactivity causes about half the internal heat around the planet . Its presence in Antarctica had not been recorded but radioactivity didn't start melting ice just in the past 2 centuries. So it's irrelevant to climate conclusions on today's AGW.