Let’s assume for the sake of assumption that climatologist, geologist and other environmental scientist do have the ability to say with certainty that the Earth is the hottest it has been in 400 years. What can we surmise from such a conclusion? One thing is fairly obvious: the Earth has been as hot or hotter in the recent past (recent in relative terms, considering the overall age of the planet).

This week, scientists with the National Academy of Sciences have made just such a conclusion, they went on to deduce that the bulk of this global climate change is manmade, a theory which while seemingly sound, is unproven. If indeed, Earth is the hottest it’s been in 400 years, then what exactly accounted for such high temperatures during the 17th century? Were those manmade as well?

Then there’s the science involved, which is questionable at best. In the first place how exactly were the esteemed researchers at the National Academy of Sciences able to calculate with absolute certainty the average temperature of the Earth over a 400 year time period? Paintings. That’s right, among other things, the scientists relied on such irrefutable evidence as paintings of glaciers in the Alps to reach a definitive conclusion on the Earth’s average temperature. Surely if any reasonable person presented such “evidence” to a dissertation committee they would be summarily dismissed and asked never to return. On the whole these “scientists” relied on “proxy” evidence to create a body of work, which would be flattering to call shoddy. Tree rings, sediment and cave deposits are not conclusive measures of climate or temperature, if so why bother with advanced weather instruments or satellite technology when we can just pay a visit to the Louvre to see what the weather is like.

Perhaps most disconcerting about such evidence and many other studies that evaluate climate change is the fact that in many cases they completely ignore one of the chief factors influencing global temperatures: the Sun. While it is certainly conceivable that carbon dioxide emissions have played a role in global temperature change, isn’t it also possible, indeed likely, that solar variations have contributed to global warming as well? To conclude that temperature change is primarily a manmade phenomenon without even examining the considerable evidence of increased solar activity is scientifically irresponsible, at best.

In the last 400 years solar activity has increased significantly, following a period known as the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s when solar activity declined significantly (incidentally the period immediately preceding the Maunder Minimum, corresponds exactly with the last period of high global temperatures, as determined by the National Academy of Sciences). During the last 100 years in particular solar activity has reached a zenith, with solar variation the highest since solar observation began. Can any reasonable, objective scientist seriously ignore such evidence when assessing the cause of global climate change?

Who is so foolish as to ignore the Sun in any study of the weather. To do so instantaneously relegates any climate study to the fiction section of the local library.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

Other important links:
http://www.ucar.edu/research/sun/climate.shtml
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/reid00.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/CDROM/solar_variability.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109062443/ABSTRACT