Warming Sure! Humanly Generated? Unlikely!

SEE HERE I like it when I see serious questioning of the global warming alarmist view by serious scientists. Here's something worth reading if you are interested in this on-going squabble. I was going to write debate, but since neither side seems willing to actually just talk about the data, indeed most of the data is submerged in rhetoric, squabble seemed like the more accurate word.

Look at Parts I thorough III:
Part 1 Conclusion: There is no direct evidence showing that CO₂ caused the 20^th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming.

Part 2 Conclusion: if the global temperature is carefully analyzed (for example, by folding the global temperature of the past 120 years over the 11-year solar cycle), it is possible to see variations of about 0.1°C in the land temperature, and slightly less in the ocean surface temperature.

Moreover, when studying directly the total ocean heat content, it is possible to see that the amount of heat going into the oceans is at least 5 times larger than can be expected from just the changes in the total solar irradiance (e.g., see this blog entry and references therein). Thus, one can conclude that there must be at least one mechanism amplifying the link between solar activity and climate.

Part 3 Conclusion: We can expect, with reasonable confidence, that solar activity will diminish over the 21^st century, and cause a temperature decrease of several tenths of a degree.

His final words represent a true scientist: And now for the really last point. Don’t believe a word I write. If you are a genuine scientist, or wish to think like one, you should base your beliefs on facts you see and scrutinize for yourself. On the same token, do not blindly believe the climate alarmists. In particular, be ready to ask deep questions. Does the evidence you are shown prove the points that are being made? Is the evidence reliable? Sometimes you'll be amazed from the answers you find.