[agere_contra]

Sure...and Einstein was wrong because he made a simple arithmetic error. Give it a rest.

I can't work out what you're talking about. Is it your contention that solar insolation ISN'T the primary factor in global temperature?

In which case its time to EAT SOME GRAPHS!!! :0)

The following is a collection of temperature reconstructions. Note the sinusoidal variations in temperature over the last 1000 years. Note the high temperatures 1000 years ago. Perhaps the Guardian can explain how those evil Greenlanders managed to drive temperatures so high in 1000 AD. And why temperatures got so low in the 1600's?

[true_blue_texican]

Yummy graphs, contra, thanks. ;-)

[liberallarry]

I can't work out what you're talking about. Is it your contention that solar insolation ISN'T the primary factor in global temperature?

My contention is that the scientists are true professionals, not laymen. Which means they are aware of, and have considered, any and all arguments which laymen can raise.

Early in the dispute about the role of man's activity in global warming I tried to follow the technical arguments...and couldn't. Not necessarily because I was not capable of mastering the science (although that's a distinct possibility) but because doing so would consume far more time and effort than a I cared to dispose of.

So I'm reduced to following the arguments in laymens' terms...and I tend to feel most others are too...or should be if they had any sense.

[Buckhead]

You gents will be interested in this, The Acquittal of CO2, http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html, which fits the CO2 lag in the paleoclimate data to the curve of the solubulity of CO2 in water. There is other discussion on this website of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (not what the Consensus says) and on the extent of the contribution of the sun to temperature anomalies.

Regards,