I will be specific. I believe that the bulk of the evidence is pointing to the SUN as the major contributor to the warming of the earth during the last century and indeed throughout history. Of the temperature change during the last century or so, my studies indicate human activities have likely contributed a maximum of 20% to the rise, with the remaining 80% due to the sun and its effects.
Furthermore, the benefits that we have accrued from that very small contribution FAR oughtweigh the costs of cutting CO2 emissions. Take for example, what Canada has effectively committed themselves for their share of Kyoto’s miniscule 0.07C temp rise slowing: stop driving ALL autos and stop ALL their coal-fired electricity. For that, the effect of their sacrifice, since they emit about 2% of the world’s CO2, will be 2% of 0.07C, or in other words, 0.0014C - one THOUSANDTH of a degree. Then you want to actually do something REAL and enact draconian measures that are THIRTY times more restrictive than Kyoto - and each increment of that is going to be more and more costly? It is time for Canada to refute and pull out of Kyoto, and we have to thank the US Senate for their strong stance in the 1990s in voting UNANIMOUSLY to refute Kyoto.
The ANNUAL cost of even Kyoto, according to Gore’s(!) own specialist, for the US, was 100-400B$ ... that’s billion with a B. That is not a “one time” cost ... it is a recurring cost. How many times has the “estimated cost” quoted by any proponent in government ever come in higher than the estimate? How many times has it come in lower? I maintain that even Kyoto would cost more than 400B$/yr. Bear in mind, also, that to do what the alarmists suggest is needed is to cut CO2 by THIRTY times Kyoto’s result! Though the cost of the such a cut would certainly not be linear, but probably sharply exponential, let’s pretend it is for now, and say that such a DUMB move would imply that the US spend 3-12 TRILLION DOLLARS per year of its 12T$ economy.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - even the 100B$/yr would cut into PRODUCTIVE activities would be like an added tax of 1% on productivity. Not much? Bear in mind that the difference between Africa and the United States is 1% higher productivity growth in the US during the last 200 years. That 1% (swelling into 4% and more and more) will clearly harm the world economy - much more in the Third World than in the US. Higher productivity is the key to human development, not higher taxation.
Kyoto, and other such CO2 limitations, are foolish. They were based on two things:
First, INCORRECT temperature data to begin with that grossly inflated temperature rises, until the effects of “urban island” and lousy kept temp stations was pointed out that... but the early alarmists couldn’t let that keep them down though they were grudgingly forced to at least somewhat correct their charts.
Second, the models are modelling only what based on the garbage they are fed... and there are so many free parameters in the models they could be just as well used to design a dress as to model Earth’s climate. OF COURSE, they show CO2 and temp change are correlated! That’s a prime input! Of course, they don’t show effects of clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays... and who knows what else... they aren’t designed to show that! There are a myriad of things that they don’t include - any of which could account for a temperature rise. I’ll still bet that the SUN is easily the most important player - and in any event, our efforts to change the temperature by draconian limiting of CO2 would have far worse effects on world health and happiness than the temperature change.
The real agenda of these global alarmists is to rid Earth of human activity, or at least limit it as much as possible, as the quotes in post#1 show. I’m surprised that so many people who consider themselves sane can possibly support them.
Global models: Garbage in, Garbage out.
The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change does not support your opinion. If you want to catch my interest, make a substantive argument against what's presented there.
The rest of your post was perused. I'm not going to waste my time on it, other than to say that you're wrong about the temperature data. You would be a more diehard skeptic than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen to assert that there is something markedly wrong with the observational surface temperature record. They can be contacted; get their opinion.
I have read so much by the AGW crowd. They are wholly an insane lot. They truly believe the Earth will go through this unstoppable change due to man. At the core of AGW believers is an evil heart. The AGW crowd is anti-human and anti-capitalist. For the most part spend they days in bitterness and hatred of those of us who believe in enjoying life and just "adapting" to what climate change will be brought about by the SUN. They are obsessed with an irrational belief that if we just cut back on our CO2 emissions things will be fine. For the most part, I just laugh at their utter pathetic arrogance. If it wasn't for the fact that the AGW crowd is determined to pass laws to foster the utter destruction of the US and our way of life, I would otherwise just laugh in their face. The AGW crowd is just using the climate change scare as a cover for their dark envious souls. The AGW could care less about the Earth -- they true goal is making everyone as miserable as they are. I pray to God Almighty that before they pass their laws and regulations, time will show them to be the fools they are.