The Great Global Warming Swindle

DiarmaidGNR

I recently watched the channel 4 documentary on the web, and I have to say that is a great piece of work with material from real scientists at the top of their field on the issue (Instead of the usual emotional hippie stuff). It more or less stated, and proved, that yes the climate was changing - but not due to man made factors.
Before you reply to this thread please watch the full documentary. (the first half is science and then it kind of moves on to politics.)
I realize that this thread already exists, - ( it was closed for some unknown reason), but given the unearthing of emails from the University of East Anglia showing fraudulent figures (on which the 2007 IPCC report was based) I think it is perfectly reasonable to re-post.

Heroditas

Hi Diarmaid, do you have a link for the programme?
I wouldn't mind watching it.

DiarmaidGNR

Here's a link - http://www.megavideo.com/?v=W952P8W8

Or

Here's one including the epic intro! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

probe

No surprises in this TV programme. Blame Margaret Thatcher for inventing it! Like today’s financial crisis, the Anglo-Saxon war against Iraq (Thatcher got Bush senior to go to war against Iraq), the pension mess (which started with Equitable Life going bankrupt, (it had one of the best returns for pensioners/policy holders in the industry since it was established in 1762, mainly because they paid no commissions to brokers - they went out of business thanks to Thatcher liberalisation of the financial system, the property bubble (caused by easy money from the de-mutualisation of building societies and liberalisation of the home finance market leading to 120% loan to value mortgages), the destruction of Britain’s industrial fabric (she wanted to promote services - and the brain drain into useless financial services, at the expense of manufacturing and farming industry), the CO2 / climate change story which she invented to ramp up nuclear Britain (because she was anti-Muslim, anti-British coal miner), etc... they can all be traced back to one person – Margaret Thatcher. Madame “there is no such thing as society”.

While she isn’t solely to blame for the problems of the world, this arrogant, gullible and easily influenced, self-indulgent individual did more than her share to mess the world up, ramp up terrorism risks, start wars, and reduce the quality of life for mankind.

Alternative source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3IhIUBghPc&feature=related (8 video files for the entire TV programme, SD)

PS: The very limited role of CO2 in climate change was discussed here over two years ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055110595

djpbarry

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

It more or less stated, and proved, that yes the climate was changing - but not due to man made factors.

How exactly was this proved?

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Before you reply to this thread please watch the full documentary.

Sorry, that’s not how things work around here. This is a discussion forum, not YouTube.

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

I realize that this thread already exists, - ( it was closed for some unknown reason)...

It was closed because it was over 2.5 years old. Occasionally, it’s worth reviving such an old thread. On this occasion, I did not believe it was.

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

...but given the unearthing of emails from the University of East Anglia showing fraudulent figures...

Fraudulent figures? News to me. But anyway, let’s keep that to the other thread, shall we?

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

No surprises in this TV programme. Blame Margaret Thatcher for inventing it, etc., etc. ...

This is not the Conspiracy Theories forum.

probe

djpbarry wrote: »

This is not the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Conspiracy? A conspiracy suggests an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret. There was nothing secret, unlawful or evil in Thatcherism. She was very public in her modus operandi.

Stupid, doctrinaire, gullible, ill-conceived ideas, lapped up by a naïve public, perhaps.

If you look at "research" in any area of human endeavour, the agenda is frequently driven by people throwing money at it.

CO2 / climatology is no different.

PS Have you watched the entire TV programme yourself?

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

Conspiracy? A conspiracy suggests an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret. There was nothing secret, unlawful or evil in Thatcherism. She was very public in her modus operandi.

Super, but it's not relevant to this thread, or even this forum.

probe wrote: »

If you look at "research" in any area of human endeavour, the agenda is frequently driven by people throwing money at it.

That depends on what you mean by "agenda" and "driven".

probe wrote: »

Have you watched the entire TV programme yourself?

I watched it when it was originally aired in 2007. At the time, I thought it was based largely on misrepresentation and the fabrication of data. I've seen little since to change my mind.

probe

djpbarry wrote: »

I watched it when it was originally aired in 2007. At the time, I thought it was based largely on misrepresentation and the fabrication of data. I've seen little since to change my mind.

Please consider watching it again. I did not see it when it originally aired - I'm outside the station's coverage area. I watched it last night.

It is intelligent journalism, highlighting an issue one comes across again and again. $$$ driven "research" which comes to the "right" conclusion. The conclusion the paymaster wants to hear.

I have no doubt that a pharmaceutical company planning to bring out "fast food in an easily digestible capsule form" could (if they spent enough billions) get scientists to agree that fruit and veg are bad for you - and nutrition in tablet form is far better for you!

I'm totally for the development of renewable energy, having a seamless integrated public transport system based on renewables and ideally all transport using electricity for traction, because it is more energy efficient, less polluting and makes less noise.

Carbon based fuels create all sorts of pollution - SOx, NOx, Carbon monoxide, PMs, as well as noise. Which lead to illness and premature death of millions of people.

In any event oil is too precious as a raw material for the production of many specialty chemicals which will be needed by current and future generations.

We need to open our minds to swindlers, of all persuasions....

Climate change is indisputable. I have my doubts that CO2 levels have more than a few percentage points of involvement in the big picture.

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

It is intelligent journalism...

If by ‘intelligent journalism’ you mean that Durkin has somehow managed to convince intelligent people that what he is saying is true, then yes, I suppose such a description would be accurate. However, if ‘intelligent journalism’ is taken to mean ‘an accurate presentation of the facts in an unbiased manner’, then The Great Global Warming Swindle is rather wide of the mark – I can recall several claims made during the documentary that have absolutely no factual basis, such as the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels, or the claim that cosmic rays have a greater influence on our climate than atmospheric CO2.

probe wrote: »

I have no doubt that a pharmaceutical company planning to bring out "fast food in an easily digestible capsule form" could (if they spent enough billions) get scientists to agree that fruit and veg are bad for you - and nutrition in tablet form is far better for you!

They might, but I would imagine any argument put forward for such a position would be heavily outweighed by the counter-arguments. The argument that scientists only support the AGW theory because governments pay them to just doesn’t add up – government grants for scientific research are tiny compared to the resources at the disposal of the likes of Shell, Exxon-Mobil, etc. For example, an Irish government grant (issued through IRCSET, for example) for a four-year PhD research programme will typically be considerably less than €100k, which has to cover salary, equipment, consumables, expenses, etc. You think anyone at Shell has to stretch their resources so thin?

lostinsuperfunk

Perhaps someone can post links to the primary sources that the programme uses, or to the publications of the featured scientists? Science doesn't advance through film or TV documentaries.

I haven't watched this programme or Al Gore's film, and I have no intention of watching either of them if I can help it.

Johro

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

I recently watched the channel 4 documentary on the web, and I have to say that is a great piece of work with material from real scientists at the top of their field on the issue (Instead of the usual emotional hippie stuff). It more or less stated, and proved, that yes the climate was changing - but not due to man made factors.
Before you reply to this thread please watch the full documentary. (the first half is science and then it kind of moves on to politics.)
I realize that this thread already exists, - ( it was closed for some unknown reason), but given the unearthing of emails from the University of East Anglia showing fraudulent figures (on which the 2007 IPCC report was based) I think it is perfectly reasonable to re-post.

Real scientists at the top of their field? How do you know? Coz the programme makers said so? 'and here's the science bit'... Don't believe everything you see/hear/read. Money rules the world, and the people with lots of it, i.e. the ones in power, make the rules for the rest of us. About whether climate change and global warming is man-mde or not, does it really matter? It's here now and the world needs a shake-up.

alastair

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

probe

1. The petabytes of objector content to this programme – most of it probably comes from the “scientists” who have their snout in the trough of CO2 global warming cash.

2. Even if CO2 has some part to play in the equation, it doesn’t really matter what Ireland or the rest of Europe does to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions – because China, India, the rest of Asia and North America will continue to suck up all the carbon based fuels on the planet to grow their economies.

3. The only positive thing that Ireland and the rest of Europe can do is develop a mass market in renewable technologies which lowers the cost of renewable energy based systems. Germany is the only country to have made a dent in this direction. Make fossil fuels obsolete before they are used up.

4. EU initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are simply bureaucrats **ssing into the wind, if one can be so vulgar, in the global scheme of things. It will make absolutely no difference to climate change, and will cost business and consumers €zillions, to no useful end.

DiarmaidGNR

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

auerillo

I've never seen an answer to the question as to why Mars is also warming, and what is causing that warming? And could whatever that is also be contributing to or causing our warming?

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

The petabytes of objector content to this programme – most of it probably comes from the “scientists” who have their snout in the trough of CO2 global warming cash.

Really? So volcanoes do produce more CO2 than humans? Climate change is all down to cosmic influences?

probe wrote: »

Even if CO2 has some part to play in the equation, it doesn’t really matter what Ireland or the rest of Europe does to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions – because China, India, the rest of Asia and North America will continue to suck up all the carbon based fuels on the planet to grow their economies.

If I notice my neighbour dumping his trash by the roadside, does that mean it’s ok for me to do the same?

auerillo wrote: »

I've never seen an answer to the question as to why Mars is also warming...

Is it?

DiarmaidGNR

Originally Posted by auerillo View Post
I've never seen an answer to the question as to why Mars is also warming...

Is it?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

djpbarry

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

auerillo wrote:

I've never seen an answer to the question as to why Mars is also warming...

Is it?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

You're saying that there is unequivocal evidence to support the position that Mars is warming? You sure about that?

DiarmaidGNR

djpbarry wrote: »

You're saying that there is unequivocal evidence to support the position that Mars is warming? You sure about that?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

djpbarry

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

This is what passes for conclusive, unequivocal evidence?

bladespin

djpbarry wrote: »

This is what passes for conclusive, unequivocal evidence?

Not in my opinion but the same could be said for the global/warming/global cooling/ 'aw well lets just call it climate change' debacle, a lot of have proofs and theories.

Interesting to see an agrument supporting the 'other' side though, suprised how supposedly open minded scientisits and eco activists round on anything that debates that man may not be responsible.

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

Not in my opinion but the same could be said for the global/warming/global cooling/ 'aw well lets just call it climate change' debacle, a lot of have proofs and theories.

Really? So the evidence that suggests the Earth is warming is no stronger than evidence which suggests Mars is warming?

auerillo

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

It is interesting to speculate that one planet seems, according ot NASA, to have warmed by 0.5°C in 30-40 years due to the action of the Sun, so why can not the same or a similar effect happen our planet?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

It is interesting to speculate that one planet seems, according ot NASA, to have warmed by 0.5°C in 30-40 years due to the action of the Sun...

When did NASA come out with this?

bladespin

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? So the evidence that suggests the Earth is warming is no stronger than evidence which suggests Mars is warming?

I'd have to say yes, one minute we're being told it's warming, then it cools down over a couple of years and heats again.

Surely ice caps melting suggest warming of some kind, it did here; isn't that part of the worry about this planet, ice caps melting raising the sea level?

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

So the evidence that suggests the Earth is warming is no stronger than evidence which suggests Mars is warming?

I'd have to say yes...

How many thermometers do we have on Mars?

bladespin

djpbarry wrote: »

How many thermometers do we have on Mars?

How many did we have here 300000 years ago?

Either way you're just proving my point, most activists are just soap boxers who prefer to shout down anyone who might have an alternative view, or deluge a question with dubious statistics so joe public runs and hides and takes your word for it.

Note* statistics on both sides are questionable here, I'm not standing on a box as I write this.

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

How many did we have here 300000 years ago?

It doesn’t really matter; we have conclusive evidence, gathered via direct measurement of temperature, that the Earth has, on average, been warming for at least the last century. If the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not (primarily) responsible for this, then what is?

bladespin wrote: »

Either way you're just proving my point, most activists are just soap boxers who prefer to shout down anyone who might have an alternative view...

I’m not shouting down anyone. The argument has been put forward that Mars is warming. I am arguing that there is very little evidence to support such a statement.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not shouting down anyone. The argument has been put forward that Mars is warming. I am arguing that there is very little evidence to support such a statement.

here's more reading on it, very similar..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

a quote...
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.



I trust NASA are ok to report as a reliable source...
the direct colleration between both planets warming up at the same time, is not something to be ignored either.

bladespin

djpbarry wrote: »

It doesn’t really matter; we have conclusive evidence, gathered via direct measurement of temperature, that the Earth has, on average, been warming for at least the last century. If the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not (primarily) responsible for this, then what is?
I’m not shouting down anyone. The argument has been put forward that Mars is warming. I am arguing that there is very little evidence to support such a statement.

The earth is about four and a half billion years old, using temperatures measured for two thousand years would be sketchy as evidence for anything, two hundred years evidence is absolutely meaningless, it'd barely be regarded as a trend statictically, so it is definately open to question.

There are any number of possible reasons for the earth's temperature to change, one of which could be CO2, but not necessarily so.

Mars had polar caps on it's mountains that have receeded over time, this would be pretty conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming, someone with the right tools could possibly make a correlation between that and our planet's temeprature shift.

The argument put forward was the climate change could be caused by something else but most green activists aren't open to that discussion, I'm not arguing for or against CO2 related change, just that it's good to hear an alternative.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by "agenda" and "driven".

... which depends on what you mean by "depends" & "mean". Cut the pretend arguments please.

Here is another example of what probe is referring to as "agandas" driving the research of scientific subcultures (please do not be so ridiculous as to ask what I 'mean' by "subcultures" before you use a dictionary, or even wiktionary). The influence (both funding & also manipulation) of the US military & the CIA (i.e. solely government funding) in cognitive science, which were used to produce intelligent missiles, created the fallacy of artificial intelligence, because the scientists would not have been so willing to produce missiles as they would a human mind. So they were used, because since Turing, they believed that the mind was a computer. This influenced philosophy (which cultivated the same ideas in the popular mindset). I study philosphy, and came head-to-head with the pathology of AI, when people like John Searle were crucified by his peers, only to be accepted more and more as the years rolled by. His peers were invested in the general consensus. But John Searle was just a bog-standard western phenomenologist and while his arguments were fully legitimate and sophisticated, he was lambasted for his "religiosity". Whether he was right or not is another issue. The human mind may be a computer still. But he was marginalised and attacked, and the root cause of this was government and malleable scientists.

Most of this was all exposed in one of Adam Curtis' documentaries. Unfortunately, I can't find a link to "It Felt like a Kiss". I'm sure it is that one but I searched for over an hour and now I have to go. I invite you to investigate yourself. This is a direct analogy with the climate change political movement and if you look back through the history of science you will find it as a recurrent trend. Sorry I couldn't find the link. I would ordinarilly, but I've got to start studying again.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

the direct colleration between both planets warming up at the same time, is not something to be ignored either.

No, it isn’t. But I trust you haven’t ignored the explanation offered for the warming on Mars which is presented in the article? Furthermore, the different means of monitoring temperature change on both planets is not something that should be ignored.

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

The earth is about four and a half billion years old, using temperatures measured for two thousand years would be sketchy as evidence for anything, two hundred years evidence is absolutely meaningless, it'd barely be regarded as a trend statictically...

So how long do we have to wait before the trend may be regarded as significant? Given that the Earth is billions of years old, another few centuries won’t make much of a difference, relatively speaking, will it?

The Earth has, on average, warmed over the past century or so – there has to be an explanation for that. Stating that it’s too soon to tell whether the planet has warmed significantly is a bit of a cop-out.

bladespin wrote: »

There are any number of possible reasons for the earth's temperature to change...

How many have strong evidence to support them?

bladespin wrote: »

Mars had polar caps on it's mountains that have receeded over time, this would be pretty conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming...

If it could be conclusively demonstrated that this is occurring, then yes, I suppose it would, assuming it was not a regional phenomenon.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mars is warming – what’s causing it?

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

... which depends on what you mean by "depends" & "mean". Cut the pretend arguments please.
...
Sorry I couldn't find the link. I would ordinarilly, but I've got to start studying again.

May I suggest that you begin by studying the difference between the Green Issues forum and this one.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

May I suggest that you begin by studying the difference between the Green Issues forum and this one.

So analogy is not a credible argument? The thread is about a documentary. My post was on green issues but my point was an indirect one. Can you please tell me how my stated example of manipulation of a scientific subculture was not relevant to this percieved manipulation another scientific culture? That was what the documentary was about after all. I'd have thought a mod could stay on-topic.

And the idea that my point was conspiratorial is ridiculous. I never mentioned a conspiracy, I mentioned an example of institutionalised pathology, of which there are many obvious examples. In 1938, if you had said that Hitler was planning on killing the Jews, would that have been conspiatorial. This is my last post. I don't believe you are even attempting to understand the points of people who disagree with you.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

So how long do we have to wait before the trend may be regarded as significant? Given that the Earth is billions of years old, another few centuries won’t make much of a difference, relatively speaking, will it?

The Earth has, on average, warmed over the past century or so – there has to be an explanation for that. Stating that it’s too soon to tell whether the planet has warmed significantly is a bit of a cop-out.
How many have strong evidence to support them?
If it could be conclusively demonstrated that this is occurring, then yes, I suppose it would, assuming it was not a regional phenomenon.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mars is warming – what’s causing it?

One more actually.

Here is another analogy. Can you deal with analogies?

The highest building in the world has a huge pendulum swinging freely in the middle of it on a very high up story. The building is so high that it sways in high winds. This means that the customers in the top story resteraunt experience sea sickness. To stop the swaying the inertia of the pendulum, which is delayed beacuse of its weight, counter-balances the more abrupt swinging of the building itself, thus smoothing out the sway.

It is very likely that the sea, which takes thousands of years to heat up and cool down, does the same job for the Earths temperature, thus smoothening out the change in global temperature. Thus, for a more accurate record of the causes of temperature change, you would need to take this into account. So one century of temperature increase (which was significantly not constant) would be an extremely small sample when understand in accord with the effect that the sea has on global temperatures.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Can you please tell me how my stated example of manipulation of a scientific subculture was not relevant to this percieved manipulation another scientific culture?

Stating that science is open to manipulation is not much of a stand-alone argument.

e04bf099 wrote: »

It is very likely that the sea, which takes thousands of years to heat up and cool down...

Thousands of years? Really?

e04bf099 wrote: »

...does the same job for the Earths temperature, thus smoothening out the change in global temperature. Thus, for a more accurate record of the causes of temperature change, you would need to take this into account.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that ocean temperatures have been taken into consideration when compiling data sets such as the global land-ocean temperature index.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that ocean temperatures have been taken into consideration when compiling data sets such as the global land-ocean temperature index.

We were talking about tree ring data. Please keep up with the thread.

This is childs play.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

We were talking about tree ring data.

We were? What gave you that impression?

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

We were? What gave you that impression?

Ok, sorry, you were talking about temperature data the last two hundred years and thousand years. My bad, I was having a conversation here at the same time and I got confused (So much for my exams). The same point applies though. Temperature variation is intimitely linked to ocean temperatures, which oscillate in a regulatory fashion, and which are sluggish in terms of there rates of change. Their oscillation happens over thousands of years... which gets you back on track, if you'll have a wee think before you post again;)

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it isn’t. But I trust you haven’t ignored the explanation offered for the warming on Mars which is presented in the article? Furthermore, the different means of monitoring temperature change on both planets is not something that should be ignored.

TBH, I have little knowledge of the Mars tempreture data collection methods, I am taking NASA as being up to date on this... unless you have further information on why it shouldn't be trusted???

no I haven't ignored it... just suggested it was a conincidence worth reviewing more, and IMHO it could add more to the Solar activity explanation for global warming.....

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Temperature variation is intimitely linked to ocean temperatures, which oscillate in a regulatory fashion, and which are sluggish in terms of there rates of change.

But the oceans are warming, are they not?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

TBH, I have little knowledge of the Mars tempreture data collection methods, I am taking NASA as being up to date on this... unless you have further information on why it shouldn't be trusted???

It’s not an issue of trust, it’s one of common sense – our estimate of the mean temperature on Mars could not possibly be as accurate as our estimate of the mean temperature on Earth.

robtri wrote: »

...it could add more to the Solar activity explanation for global warming.....

It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades. In which case, I’m going to opt for the ‘changing albedo’ explanation as the most likely at this point.

dlofnep

Speaking of Mars, haven't Nasa pondered the idea of terraforming Mars by pumping gasses into it's atmosphere to lock in heat, with intent to melt the caps? Why would they consider this if man played no part in climate change?

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

Speaking of Mars, haven't Nasa pondered the idea of terraforming Mars by pumping gasses into it's atmosphere to lock in heat, with intent to melt the caps?

I think that's a topic best reserved for the 'Astronomy & Space' forum.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s not an issue of trust, it’s one of common sense – our estimate of the mean temperature on Mars could not possibly be as accurate as our estimate of the mean temperature on Earth.

wow, yes of course our tempreture here on earth is a bit more accurate....

but that does not change the fact that the mean temp on mars is rising....
unless you can prove otherwise, I am still with Nasa, over your common sense.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades. In which case, I’m going to opt for the ‘changing albedo’ explanation as the most likely at this point.

check out here
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf

again i will take nasa data .....

from sunspot numbers you can see a steady rise.... with a big jump in late 1960's which conincides with when global warming started.....
a drop back in 1970's then a steady rise agin to the end of the current sun spot cycle...

samson09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEfriG06Xt4

At least someone knows what they're talking about!

zuutroy

djpbarry wrote: »

It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades.

Huh? Its widely accepted that solar activity was at its highest level for several hundred years in the late 20th century.

I know the 35 years of cooling after WWII was attributed to aerosols but has there been any report on the current deviation between the static global temperature coupled with increasing CO2 as shown below?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

wow, yes of course our tempreture here on earth is a bit more accurate....

A bit?

robtri wrote: »

unless you can prove otherwise, I am still with Nasa, over your common sense.

Your source was The Times, not NASA. You might say I’m being pedantic, but I think we can both agree that the media has a pretty poor track record when it comes to reporting science. So, I’ve been searching the NASA website for information on how the temperature on Mars is determined, but I haven’t found a conclusive ‘compilation’ as yet.

The point is that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the supposed warming on Mars. For example, there is evidence that the observed shrinking of an ‘ice cap’ at the southern pole is a regional phenomenon. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mars is warming. Now...

robtri wrote: »

check out here
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf

again i will take nasa data .....

from sunspot numbers you can see a steady rise...

I see a periodic oscillation, but no distinct upward or downward trend. If anything, there’s a slight downward trend since the 60’s – how can that account for the increase in global temperature observed over the same period? There’s another figure here from New Scientist showing various other indicators of solar activity.