...there is no real direct evidence which can be used to incriminate anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the being the main factor responsible for the observed global warming. The reason these gases were blamed are primarily because (1) we expect them to warm and indeed the global temperature increased, and (2) there is no other mechanism which can explain the warming.
Although this reasoning seems logical, it turns out that (1) We don't even know the sign of the anthropogenic climate driving (because of the unknown indirect aerosol effects), and (2) There is an alternative mechanism which can explain a large part of the warming.
Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming, on condition that there is a strong solar/climate link through modulation of the cosmic ray flux and the atmospheric ionization. Evidence for such a link has been accumulating over the past decade, and by now, it is unlikely that it does not exist.
This link also implies that Earth's global temperature sensitivity is also on the low side. Thus, if we double the amount of CO2 by 2100, we will only increase the temperature by about 1°C or so. This is still more than the change over the past century. This is good news, because it implies that future increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases will not dramatically increase the global temperature, though GHGs will probably be the dominate climate driver.
I have not identified the author, but you could easily find the source article by Googling any sentence from the excerpt. Please complete the following poll before tracking down the source material:
Poll #1052523 It's getting HOT in here...
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 17
The intent of the author of the above excerpt is to...
advance a politically motivated ideological position on the topic of climate change.![]()
![]()
6 (35.3%)
advance an apolitical scientific view on the role anthropogenic GHGs on climate change.![]()
![]()
3 (17.6%)
secure a "research grant" from some big corporate energy conglomerate.![]()
![]()
1 (5.9%)
Not sure.![]()
![]()
7 (41.2%)
The author of the excerpt probably has...
respectable scientific credentials.![]()
![]()
11 (64.7%)
bogus scientific credentials.![]()
![]()
1 (5.9%)
no scientific credentials.![]()
![]()
5 (29.4%)
The excerpt author's primary motiviation for articulating this particular message is most likely...
scientific.![]()
![]()
6 (35.3%)
political/cultural.![]()
![]()
10 (58.8%)
religious.![]()
![]()
0 (0.0%)
related to his tin foil hat.![]()
![]()
1 (5.9%)
KMO's motivation for posting this poll is most likely...
to make an indirect and disengenuous political point.![]()
![]()
1 (6.2%)
to encourage folks to examine their biases and thought processes.![]()
![]()
13 (81.2%)
to shamelessly promote the C-Realm Podcast.![]()
![]()
2 (12.5%)
to shamefully promote the C-Realm Podcast.![]()
![]()
0 (0.0%)
- Location:The Frog House
