Sun not responsible for climate change

gbh

A new report by scientists suggests that changes in the Sun does not contribute to climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

bonkey

Whatever about the quality of the studfy....

from the BBC article wrote:

This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

...I'm pretty certain that Dr. Lockwood is completely off the mark with this comment. It wont settle the debate. Not a chance. The rallying-cry of "not 100% certain" will continue to be made, as it will always remain valid.

gbh

It's pretty watertight as far as I am concerned. I had my doubts like many people up to now but this is pretty conclusive. But you will get the flat earth brigade arguing against it, or else US Republicans.

bonkey

gbh wrote:

But you will get the flat earth brigade arguing against it, or else US Republicans.

Or you'll get another scientist offering a rebuke to the study, claiming that its based on fauly assumptions, or its methodology doesn't stand up, that they unfairly rule out lag-times of effect greater then X years, and so on and so forth, until its far from cast in stone for anyone who wants it to be.

Seriously...if people could put not faith in the hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed papers already saying "its man wot's doing it", one more added to the pile isn't going to convince them that the scientists don't actually have their head in the sand.

gbh

Fair enough, but in my mind it's cast iron...you can't preach to other people unless you believe in something yourself...and this has convinced me..I'm one of those people who doesn't have a great scientific mind but can tell if something makes sense or not...

McSandwich

More here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

probe

Solar Deniers Attempt to Eclipse Global Warming Documentary

Marc Sheppard
On the very day before the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is to hit Aussie TV screens, the Royal Society has published the work of 2 scientists who claim to have disproved its core position - that the actions of the sun, not humans, cause global warming. And, unlike the countless studies which support solar forcing theories, this one you most definitely WILL be hearing about from the mainstream media.

Following a week of press leaks, Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich have submitted a paper to Proceedings of the Royal Society A, which admits that:

"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."

However, observe they, the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up. It is the "rapid rise in global mean temperatures" during this 22 year period ALONE which they claim "cannot be ascribed to solar variability."

Imagine that-- less than a quarter of a century? Even though old Sol has been bombarding us with its warming rays for over 4.5 billion years and clear Sun/Climate correlations have been observed spanning millennia.

Of course, it will take a little time for fellow scientists to absorb, analyze and respond to their 14 page report, right? Well, not quite - particularly when there's a pesky contrarian opinion about to be broadcast to a new continent of potential Gore-bots the very next day.

So, faster than you can say "Solar Resonant Diffusion Waves," University of Melbourne climate scientist David Karoly smugly blurted out that [emphasis added]:

"These findings completely refute the allegations made by some pseudo-scientists that all recent global warming is due to solar effects."

Incidentally, Dr. Karoly will be joining a panel arguing the assertions of the documentary immediately following its broadcast on Australia's ABC Thursday night. Any guesses which side the longtime IPCC contributor might be taking?

And Stefan Rahmstorf, who once referred to awful The Day After Tomorrow scriptwriter Jeffrey Nachmanoff as "well-informed about the science and politics of global climate change," didn't let any ice melt under his feet either. The ever-alarmed climate scientist from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany claimed an immediate, albeit macabre, victory:

"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the sun responsible for present global warming"

Ouch -- final nail in the coffin? Sure, enviro-mental-case Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently referred to AGW skeptics as traitors, but do he and his fellow alarmists really want us all stood up against a wall and offered a last big-bad-industry-pushed cancer-causing smoke?

Meanwhile, right on cue and despite the fact that these were the freshly published opinions of but 2 men (enough for a consensus?), eager Greenhouse Gas passers set to work on triumphant headlines, exemplified by:

• Sun not behind global warming
• Solar Radiation Didn't Cause Recent Global Warming, Study Shows
• Solar activity cleared of global warming blame
• Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
• 'No Sun link' to climate change

Not surprisingly, little such fanfare was awarded last month's fine work by noted Paleoclimatologist R. Timothy Patterson or the myriad others that tell the exact opposite story. But then, why would there be? The sheer simplicity of solar impact makes it public enemy number one to the scare-mongers.

Last weekend's dismal Live Earth concerts were yet another attempt to forward the green agenda and silence dissent - this time with thunderous overture, silly mantras put to driving beats, and flash-in-the-pan special effects.

Now it seems they fear the truth that one well-made documentary might convey and, therefore, feel the need to squash it with more pageantry. How pathetic.

[FONT=times new roman,times]Nevertheless, while tomorrow is sure to bring a world of reasoned retort, I would wager a case of sun-screen that the real hysteria over this paper hasn't yet begun.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/solar_deniers_attempt_to_eclip.html

[/FONT]

bonkey

My God. Its like I'm prescient or something.

probe

This Lockwood Fröhlich document was clearly rushed out by certain establishment interests in an attempt to minimise the impact of the sensationally named Channel 4 TV programme “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

In time no doubt, researchers will get closer to the real truth of the causes of climate change.

Unfortunately, it is a bit like the pharmaceutical industry – there is big money to be made from drugs, with the result that a lot of research effort and promotional hype goes into them. On the other side of the coin, it is much more difficult to make money advocating the prevention side of the health issue – a healthy diet and lifestyle etc. The solar/climate change argument suffers the same fate as healthy food.

I find it very difficult, for example, to understand how the extreme heatwave we had on the Continent in 2003 (where for example 20,000 “premature deaths” were estimated to have taken place in France) due to high temperatures in Summer 03, had much to do with increasing CO2 levels. Ditto for many other extreme weather events.

While nobody can deny that increasing CO2 levels almost certainly have some impact on climate, the weather extremes we are seeing are largely spiky. Other areas of visible climate change, such as the reduced incidence of frost in many parts of Ireland during the winter over the past 30 years or so, are more easily linkable in one’s mind to greenhouse gas increases.

Most of the data they have been using on solar activity is smoothened over time periods. One could therefore have a trend of reducing solar output when the numbers are smoothened and averaged out over a period, but if the volatility of solar activity is more spiky of late (as can be seen in the chart linked below), these spikes could have a dramatic impact on weather and climate. This does not seem to be taken into account by many solar naysayers.

Shortly after the spikes in solar activity in 2003 shown in this animation, there was large scale flooding in parts of Southern France :

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Anims/SORCE_320x240.mpg

A related issue is that they have discovered that the sun emits large amounts of energy at very low wavelengths (soft X-rays 2-20 nm) and the output of these is highly variable (vary by a factor of 5 – whereas general solar irradiance varies by about 0.1% over the solar cycle).

Doubtless other factors will come to light in time before the science on climate change is truly settled.

In the meantime, the powers that be should be focusing on controllable risks and priorities, and not allowing the decision making process to be distracted by hype on greenhouse gases or anything else. Ireland is at relatively low risk from climate change over the next 50 years or so, and there is very little if anything material that the government can do about it – any more than it can change the behaviour of the sun.

It can and urgently needs to address energy and transportation matters, and if it takes appropriate action in these matters, it will be playing its part in terms of a contribution to global efforts to minimise any impact of greenhouse gases. These urgent issues include:

1. The IEA’s projected global oil shortage of supply within five years.

2. The almost total dependence of Irish public transport on mineral oils. Ireland is the only country in Europe (aside from Iceland) that hasn’t electrified most of its national railway network.

3. The public transport service in Ireland remains disintegrated and those responsible for designing and managing same appear to be clueless on what really integrated end-to-end public transport means. One hears the word integrated in their propaganda, and that is about all that happens.

Public transport has to be so good that it virtually puts the private car out of business – and you would then end up with a virtuous circle of large scale usage, high frequency of service and reliability.

4. Rail freight has been slowly killed off in Ireland while it is taking over 60% of the market in Switzerland. Freight containers should be going directly from ship to rail using automated systems in the main ports. Residential and industrial developments should be planned in terms of access to the rail networks.

5. Ireland has probably the poorest levels of insulation in private and public buildings in Europe, aside from Great Britain.

6. The introduction of family friendly minimum standards for high density living (eg apartments). People wouldn’t buy a family house of less than around 140 M2 – and yet if one is in the market for an apartment in IRL it is often difficult to find them at more than half this size, unless one is prepared, and in a position to splash out perhaps several million on a penthouse or similar.

.probe

Chart : http://www.canada.com/storyimage.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&img=979a6c03-0842-4d20-93d8-7d6926032eb6&path=%2fnationalpost%2fenvironment%2f

Related links:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16464

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

probe

Today’s (19.07.2007) Irish Times has an article entitled “Plan will not meet EU obligation to cut CO2”. So what? Some bureaucratic EU directive target may be missed?

The article goes on to report Minister Eamon Ryan speaking at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties:

‘Ireland (is) exposed to major economic shocks because of its dependence on imported oil.

'Ireland gets 80 per cent of its gas from the North Sea, although some supplies come from Russia: "Vladimir Putin will be the one to decide whether we have gas," he told a debate on the State's energy future.

'North Sea gas and oil stocks peaked in 2000, and have dropped "rapidly" by 7 to 8 per cent a year since: "That is why the British government has rewritten two energy papers since then. If they are in trouble, then so are we." Gas could allow Ireland time to convert to a non-fossil fuel society, and away from 90 per cent dependence on imported fossil fuels.

'The average in the rest of the European Union is close to 50 per cent. We are exposed. Everybody in the country should be aware of these facts," he said.’

The last four paragraphs point out some of the real issues about energy in Ireland. CO2 emissions are way down the scale on national priorities for Ireland, and the media do little to bring the message home to their readers by continuing to use inappropriate headlines.
[FONT=&quot]
.probe


[/FONT]

jawlie

A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.

During this same period, however, the graph of CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory has continued a consistent rise. If rising CO2 inexorably means rising temperatures, what happened to those temperatures?

Lennoxschips

There has been no flattening out since 1998. 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded.

2007 isn't finished yet, why don't you hold your horses and wait to hear what the Met Office/NASA etc has to say on 31/12/2007. We don't want to rush to judgment on half arsed results, now do we?

jawlie

Lennoxchips ,so if 2007 "finishes" showing low average temperatures, compared to, say, the last 5, or 7 years, what will you deduce? It can't help being noticed that you don;t deal with the evidence from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Mauna Loa Observatory. Why not?

Capt'n Midnight

one solution would be a giant fresnel lens balanced between then sun and earth to deflect 1% of the solar radiation away. I'm not too sure what the light pressure would be and there is also the risk that if you turned it around you could focus it on the earth and have a death beam

but a techno-fix like that would mean we do nothing about the environment.

Lennoxschips

jawlie wrote:

Lennoxchips ,so if 2007 "finishes" showing low average temperatures, compared to, say, the last 5, or 7 years, what will you deduce? It can't help being noticed that you don;t deal with the evidence from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Mauna Loa Observatory. Why not?

I would deduce absolutely nothing from a colder and/or warmer year out of five or six. Nor would any climate scientist worth his salt.

What you want to look at is long-term trends.

PeakOutput

how does he explain the fact that the "ice caps" on mars are melting at the same rate as the ones on earth????

until that is explained to me scientifically i will not be believing anyone that says we are the sole cause of global warming

jawlie

PeakOutput, you will notice that Lennoxchips doesn't actually "answer" anything which may not agree with his views, and in the past ignores any such facts.

It's part of the curious business of climate change, that many are too obsessed with winning their point, or proving that they are right, rather than considering all aspects and even being prepared to change their minds on the basis of evidence.

Those who are zealots in favour of the climate change arguments either ignore the arguments of anyone who may have a different point of view, or else they rubbish the people making the argument as a means of distracting us from the fact that they are not able to answer the argument.

The final resort is to make a lot of noise along the lines that "95 % of the scientific community accept the facts that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change". While such arguments are not provable, there is a substantial body of scientific opinion that does not accept that greenhouse gases are solely or even largely responsible.

It is important to recognise such zealots and realise that it is about as worthwhile getting a balanced opinion from them as it is trying to get a mormon to have sex with your cat.

dalk

jawlie wrote:

A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998.

Please post a link to this information on the NOAA's website... because any of the graphs i've seen have flattened but are still on an upward projection. That graph is data up to 2006, and 2007 doesn't look like its going to buck the trend.

jawlie wrote:

The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.

Please post a link to this information on the NOAA's website... because on the the NOAA website referring to 2007:

NOAA Website wrote:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record for the January-June six-month period. Separately, the global January-June land-surface temperature was warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature was the sixth warmest in the 128-year period of record.

Above average temperatures covered much of the world's land surfaces during the first half of the year. While some land areas in the Southern Hemisphere began the June-August winter season with below average temperatures, it was the warmest June on record at the South Pole.

Am i missing something? Where's the dip to 1983?

dalk

PeakOutput wrote:

how does he explain the fact that the "ice caps" on mars are melting at the same rate as the ones on earth????

until that is explained to me scientifically i will not be believing anyone that says we are the sole cause of global warming

How about this article?

Or how about explaining away the fact that solar irradiance levels have been steady since the late 70's anyway, but temperatures have continued to rise.

jawlie

I love the beginning of the reference Dalk offers; "Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to.....".

I guess it could be due to all sorts of reasons!

dalk

jawlie wrote:

I love the beginning of the reference Dalk offers; "Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to.....".

I guess it could be due to all sorts of reasons!

Lol... wow, thats a devastating debunking of that article Jawlie. :rolleyes: And all you had to do was read the first line...

jawlie wrote:

A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.

Still waiting for references for the above claims.

PeakOutput

dalk wrote:

How about this article?

Or how about explaining away the fact that solar irradiance levels have been steady since the late 70's anyway, but temperatures have continued to rise.

that article only proves that average planetary temperatures can change on their own with no outside interference. that only further goes to show that any temperature changes on earth COULD have happened weather humans were here or not.

I havent read up on this subject in about 12months so i could be out of date I just find it very egotistical to assume we are having such a large affect and that BOTH sides tend to disregard anything that remotely goes against their views(that are generally only held in the first place due to financial reasons)

for example did nasa not actually show that since 1940 the average temperature of the earth has dropped by 2-3degrees??? again this is probably 1 year old news but ill try and google it and see what i find

dalk

PeakOutput wrote:

that article only proves that average planetary temperatures can change on their own with no outside interference. that only further goes to show that any temperature changes on earth COULD have happened weather humans were here or not.

The article was only trying to find an explanation as to why Mars is getting warmer in spite of solar activity having been stable for 30 years.

Of course, climate change is naturally occurring. Obviously the earth has been getting warmer and colder for millennia before humans existed. Volcanoes, solar activity, earth orbit variations all affect climate. I would like to think that climate experts know all this in a lot more detail than i do, and will have taken these phenomena into account when trying to gauge what is happening (if anything) at the moment...

PeakOutput wrote:

BOTH sides tend to disregard anything that remotely goes against their views(that are generally only held in the first place due to financial reasons)

Yeah.. it can be like a mac versus pc debate sometimes.

PeakOutput wrote:

for example did nasa not actually show that since 1940 the average temperature of the earth has dropped by 2-3degrees???

I don't know, maybe up until the early 70's. Provide some links.

Lennoxschips

NASA:



edit: I've found the data up to 2005. 2006 was even warmer, but i can't find an up to date graph on the internet. As you can see, the post-1998 "flattening out" that was mentioned is, well, non-existant. However, that graph is a global average, if you'll look closely at the geographical distribution of the warming then you will see that by far the greatest warming is occurring at the North Pole, which was predicted by climate scientists. The same scientists also predict that the South Pole will warm similarly later on, but there is a lag effect due to the thermal buffer effect the Southern Ocean. The lag is about 50-100 years, I believe (I read some journal papers on it in early 2006).

I don't have to tell you which two ends of the planet all the ice is located.

Volcanoes, solar activity, earth orbit variations all affect climate. I would like to think that climate experts know all this in a lot more detail than i do, and will have taken these phenomena into account when trying to gauge what is happening (if anything) at the moment

Exactly!

Lennoxschips

jawlie wrote:

PeakOutput, you will notice that Lennoxchips doesn't actually "answer" anything which may not agree with his views, and in the past ignores any such facts.

If I was ignoring you I wouldn't be refuting all your facts.

Could you please stop launching personal tirades against me and stop calling me an ignorant zealot.

jawlie

Once again, you misconstrue facts. I did not, and would not, call you an ignorant zealot. To point out that you don't answer things which are inconvenient can hardly be classed as a "personal tirade". That you should make such exaggerated and seemingly emotional claims might cause others to question your integrity.

maniac101

jawlie wrote:

A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998.

I was hoping that you would follow up on this with some links to the relevant data at the NOAA. Since you didn't provide any, I went searching myself but could only find this at their website:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif**
It deals with data up to 2003 only, so is not quite as recent as you appear to be referring to. It clearly shows a continued rise in mean temperatures since the late 70s (blue line). Looking at one year in isolation (eg 1998) does not provide a basis for your statement that temperatures have flattened out well below their peak. You will see on the graph that mean temperature change is measured by the NOAA over 30 years relative to the period 1961-1990.

I really don't want to get caught up in climate change wars here, but I understood that people were in agreement on both sides of the debate that mean temperatures were continuing to rise (and that the contentious issue was the antropogenic influence). Please point us to any concrete evidence to the contrary.

**EDIT: Update to 2005:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jun/glob-jan-jun-pg.gif
Still no sign of of a flattening out of temps.

Lennoxschips

jawlie wrote:

Once again, you misconstrue facts. I did not, and would not, call you an ignorant zealot. To point out that you don't answer things which are inconvenient can hardly be classed as a "personal tirade". That you should make such exaggerated and seemingly emotional claims might cause others to question your integrity.

I'm referring to the post of 25-07 at 8:54.

jawlie

I really want to apologise to everyone for taking up space, and I hate doing this, but feel I have to respond to what seems like a oh-yes-you-did-oh-no-you-didn't pantomine. I reiterate that I never called Lennoxchips an "ignorant zealot" as he claims, not did I go a "personal tirade" against him, as he also claims. If he reads that from what I have said the he is simply wrong.

Also, I did not make a post at 8.54 on 25/7 as he further claims, but assume he means 7.54 and just got it wrong.

Apologies to all for this, but I hate the unfairness of being wrongly accused!

Lennoxschips

yeah, well being in amsterdam my time is displayed in central european time

juddd

The sun may not be responsible, it is coming to the end of its solar cycle where activity relating to sun spots and flares has decreased.

Read this article from nasa.
they have 2 satellites monitoring the sun and have observed that the sun is in a state of solar minnimum.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_live.html

sorry if this has been mentioned already, i just dont have time to read all the long posts here.

WhiteWashMan

probe wrote:

Solar Deniers Attempt to Eclipse Global Warming Documentary

Marc Sheppard
On the very day before the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is to hit Aussie TV screens, the Royal Society has published the work of 2 scientists who claim to have disproved its core position - that the actions of the sun, not humans, cause global warming. And, unlike the countless studies which support solar forcing theories, this one you most definitely WILL be hearing about from the mainstream media.

Following a week of press leaks, Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich have submitted a paper to Proceedings of the Royal Society A, which admits that:

"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."

However, observe they, the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up. It is the "rapid rise in global mean temperatures" during this 22 year period ALONE which they claim "cannot be ascribed to solar variability."

Imagine that-- less than a quarter of a century? Even though old Sol has been bombarding us with its warming rays for over 4.5 billion years and clear Sun/Climate correlations have been observed spanning millennia.

Of course, it will take a little time for fellow scientists to absorb, analyze and respond to their 14 page report, right? Well, not quite - particularly when there's a pesky contrarian opinion about to be broadcast to a new continent of potential Gore-bots the very next day.

So, faster than you can say "Solar Resonant Diffusion Waves," University of Melbourne climate scientist David Karoly smugly blurted out that [emphasis added]:

"These findings completely refute the allegations made by some pseudo-scientists that all recent global warming is due to solar effects."

Incidentally, Dr. Karoly will be joining a panel arguing the assertions of the documentary immediately following its broadcast on Australia's ABC Thursday night. Any guesses which side the longtime IPCC contributor might be taking?

And Stefan Rahmstorf, who once referred to awful The Day After Tomorrow scriptwriter Jeffrey Nachmanoff as "well-informed about the science and politics of global climate change," didn't let any ice melt under his feet either. The ever-alarmed climate scientist from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany claimed an immediate, albeit macabre, victory:

"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the sun responsible for present global warming"

Ouch -- final nail in the coffin? Sure, enviro-mental-case Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently referred to AGW skeptics as traitors, but do he and his fellow alarmists really want us all stood up against a wall and offered a last big-bad-industry-pushed cancer-causing smoke?

Meanwhile, right on cue and despite the fact that these were the freshly published opinions of but 2 men (enough for a consensus?), eager Greenhouse Gas passers set to work on triumphant headlines, exemplified by:

• Sun not behind global warming
• Solar Radiation Didn't Cause Recent Global Warming, Study Shows
• Solar activity cleared of global warming blame
• Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
• 'No Sun link' to climate change

Not surprisingly, little such fanfare was awarded last month's fine work by noted Paleoclimatologist R. Timothy Patterson or the myriad others that tell the exact opposite story. But then, why would there be? The sheer simplicity of solar impact makes it public enemy number one to the scare-mongers.

Last weekend's dismal Live Earth concerts were yet another attempt to forward the green agenda and silence dissent - this time with thunderous overture, silly mantras put to driving beats, and flash-in-the-pan special effects.

Now it seems they fear the truth that one well-made documentary might convey and, therefore, feel the need to squash it with more pageantry. How pathetic.

[FONT=times new roman,times]Nevertheless, while tomorrow is sure to bring a world of reasoned retort, I would wager a case of sun-screen that the real hysteria over this paper hasn't yet begun.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/solar_deniers_attempt_to_eclip.html

[/FONT]

I watched this.
was a very good program and a very good debate with some of the top research scientists in australia.

personally, i find it hard to believe that man has had such a huge impact on the planet to result in so much climate change.

as for whoever suggested that you take a long term look at weather patterns,just how long is long?
10 years?
20 years?
5000 years?

100 years of record keeping really dont show much compared to a very long history of ice ages and sever droughts.

its not so long ago (in cosmic terms) that 95% of all life on this planet was killed off due to an average 10 degree raise in temperature, and there wasnt a man in sight pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Lennoxschips

Now it seems they fear the truth that one well-made documentary might convey and, therefore, feel the need to squash it with more pageantry. How pathetic.

this is the same "well-made documentary" that was censured for including doctored graphs?

RedPlanet

Just like to point out that more evidence has been published debunking the cosmic-ray theory, favored by climate "sceptics".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.