Unfortunately, the whole article is not available on line without an expensive subscription — only the abstract is shown.
Some comments:
1. The authors of the article do not explain why the solar hypothesis worked in the past, but does not work now.
2. They do not explain why the solar hypothesis stopped working in the 1980s, long after the Industrial Revolution was under weigh.
3. The graph given on the BBC coverage does not give units for temperature. Presumably, the temperatures are in °C. A good high-school science teacher would tell them “Always use units with your data, or else it is all just numbers.”
4. Critics of the greenhouse model of anthropogenic global warming point our that the GW hypothesis predicts increasing temperatures of the upper troposphere. However, the graph shown on the BBC report is for surface temperatures, which are subject to many other variables.
5. The Royal Society site trumpets the new article with a headline, “The Truth about Global Warming.” That is rather unusual for the presentation of a scientific article. It is more bombastically propagandistic that scientific. It really makes one wonder what is going on here.
Yeah...which means detailed criticism cannot be made intelligently by those who haven't subscribed. Hmmm....
The lead author, however, is very, very adamant about the filmmakers who twisted his position (reminds one of Michael Moore, no?)
This is the TimesSelect argument - if it's behind a copyright/pay wall, it can be safely ignored. I can't remember the last time I read a full MoDo article, and my life is no less rich for it. :-)
There are a couple of reasons why the TimesSelect argument works handily. Number one, the most obvious, is that the unwashed peasantry are not allowed to just up and handle the goods, and comment on them. Number two is the clincher: since there's one ONE legal copy, the TimesSelecters can change the original at their leisure, if need be. Look at the LATimes Thompson cowboy controversy this week if you need any further proof of the matter.
Conclusion: IGNORED!
Your comments are right on. How can anyone deny that the sun has a role to play in climate change? Didn’t we recently have an example of the changes due to increased sun spot activity on immediate temp change?
Here’s the abstract in question if anyone has a way to access it:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/
I blogged on this subject Monday, and found this letter refuting the methodology and findings of that meta analysis from a few years ago that supposedly showed that no real scientist disagreed that humans cause all global warming.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm