Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Welsh cake]

In science, statistics ARE facts, or at least as close to them as you will ever get.

Ever heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"? Statistics can be manipulated to emphasize any correlation between variables. You cannot argue within science and statistics that one causes the other, you're essentially making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy by claiming these events must have a cause and effect relationship without going for further investigation first.

As for the sun dictating weather, sure the sun dictates the energy flux the earth receives, but it has no control whatsoever over the earth's energy output.

The Sun is already halfway through its main-sequence stage, its gradually becoming more and more luminous. This is already explained in stellar evolution, its surface temperature is slowly rising in line with simulated computer models. This increase in solar temperatures means in another billion years the surface of the Earth will be too hot for liquid water to exist, all terrestrial life will end, long before our Sun ever becomes a Red Giant.

When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.

Science thrives on skepticism, on open-mindedness, and searching for new ways of critical thinking, science stagnates in our convictions that it's infallible. The arseholes in Climategate responded to critics of global warming theory that their skepticism wasn't "legitimate", and of course we all know about their infamous email controversy back in Nov '09.

It wasn't an argument from authority, it was a response to your rather pathetic little piece of showmanship, waving about the a picture of the sun as if the scientists completely forgot to account for it.

You missed the point again, they didn't forget to account for it, they opted instead to *completely ignore it* along with volcanic activity and major eruptions.

There is a ton of evidence, one being satellite data that shows progressively less energy escaping the atmosphere than is entering which is, again, more closely correlated with increasing C02 emissions than any single other factor contained in the data, INCLUDING solar activity.

Didn't I just tell you that that was still woefully inadequate to determine one way or the other about what long-term cyclic patterns our climate is currently going through? Even with the data there are present-day anomalies in the Sun's behavior that still need to be explained.

Notice the strongest correlation? No other factors are even slightly as indicative.

Which brillantly informative source did you get that accurate graph from? The IPCC?

It carries on well into the 90s yet doesn't even take into account the Mt. Pinatubo 1991 eruption, which released 20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere; cooling Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius, despite an ongoing El Nino event. No where on the model do I see see that represented.

Again, no other factors have any where near as strong of a correlation as increased C02 emissions.

You also haven't heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?

That's got nothing to with the data.

Actually, it does. The industry, steam locomotives and coal mines in Wales are all long gone, yet they argue CO2 emissions have never been higher, and we need legislation to cut them, please explain that to me.

You think you can get over your biases for long enough to argue the evidence?

If you give me a massive government grant I think we can arrange something.