Climate change debate is being distorted by dogma

Comparing the average of one decade with the average for the preceeding decade and drawing a linear trend is fine if we are dealing with a linear system. However climate is anything but linear. It is complex and follows a large number of cycles, some of which combined to give a peak in 1998.
So, yes, I am cherry picking data by looking at a trend since that peak and ignoring data before it. However if the scientific community can agree on a best fit spline curve to suit the data over say 100 years, I'd be just as happy, as that too would show the global temperatures are currently in a cooling phase. It appears to be only the dedicated warmers who prefer to try and squeeze everything into a linear pattern, and hence obscure what is really happening.

The cause of the Ice Age cycle is well known - the "Milankovich cycles" where the tilt of the earth proceeds over a period of 100,000 years or so. So, the Earth has less difference between winter and summer - and hence, the ice caps aren't exposed to as much light, and you get an ice age.
Very interesting stuff, but entirely irrelevant to the current day. The poster is right that man had no impact on this change, but that does not in any way imply that CO₂ increases we make today will not affect the climate tomorrow. We might be small, but we're having an undeniable impact on those levels on a planetary scale!
Sorry if it looks like I'm trying to dominate this discussion, with many posts. But the "delusion" here is this idea that these arguments have not been already exhaustively examined by the scientific community at large, and one by one eliminated.

This argument is typical of a "climate change skeptic". The poster tries to make a few "common sense" arguments, before spreading old arguments that have very little backing or merit.
The argument about "academia being like prostitution" is entirely bogus; not only is it ad homineum, but scientific reputations are built on well presented arguments which withstand critical analysis. It is not the other way around as the author implies. An author who could come up with a decent paper to refute the consensus position would receive acclaim, not be ejected.
A little warming might be fine, but a 3°C global warming has dire impacts on many parts of the globe. Acidification of the oceans could wipe out our entire population of coral reefs. This "impact skepticism" should also be ignored, it's just wrong.
Yes an ice age is coming, perhaps some time in the next 10,000 years. But you cannot draw from this that the current man-induced warming is not urgent on the scale of decades, or that it would not be devastating to ecosystems or our way of life.

Jantar, a few things.
One, you're making the mistake of comparing a peak year - and indeed on many records 1998 is a peak well above the later years, the "Super El Niño" year - with a decade. The correct comparison is to compare the decade from 1988-1998 to 1998-2008. If you do that, there is warming on all records apart from the high atmosphere where weather balloons float (which is expected).
But even that might not be enough - for if (for example) aerosols released by China and India's burgeoning industry were to increase the reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere, they would have a net cooling effect as more light is reflected back out to space. This happened around 1940-1970 during the post-WWII boom in the US, in fact. Similarly, volcanoes erupting have the same effect. But this is only a temporary reprieve; once the dust settles, the CO₂ is still around. This is why it is for the answer we must look to models, which combine as much of our knowledge about the physics of the biosphere as is practical.
The link I posted to the AIP book lying out the scientific history is important, but seems to have been lost, so here it is again: http://www.aip.org/history/climate - anyone who really thinks that a skeptical position is valid should read at least the first full length essay from it.

I've never been much of a respecter of scientific reputations. Professional academia was always a bit too much like prostitution for my liking...
Ask yourself this: what climate is easier to live in - temperate or cold? Now ask yourself: what am I currently prepared to live in - temperate or cold? Answers to those questions would provide better guidance to most people for preparing to live with climate change than any proof by authority from a scientist?
I prefer fire, but I fear ice. How well would our current society cope with a sudden onset of extreme cold? It may not be a popular scenario, but it costs nothing to imagine what we will need to cope with it. Nobody is doing that analysis, most likely because the Government Johns don't favour that sort of scientist tart currently...

Read the APS Climate Change Statement on their home page. Their position on global warming is unambiguous:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
Also note that on the APS site, the article Crustacean refers to is headed by a fairly strong disclaimer:
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

All global temperature records now show a declining trend since the peak of 1998. Hansen's GISS record shows the smallest decline compared with the Hadley CRUT3 data or the MSU satellite data, but it is there and cannot be disputed.So how many years of declining temperatures are needed to show that Global Warming is natural and not man made? Obviously a decade isn't sufficient.

Before anyone gets too excited about Crustacean's naked emperor, they should read the disclaimer on the article referred to:
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
The position of the American Physical Society is unambiguous. To quote one paragraph from their current National Policy:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
From the APS home page:
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
From the APS National Policy:
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

The link to and question of Solar Variance is nowhere as new as many people put it; indeed, to many it seemed the most obvious source of change, especially given the period of cold associated with the Maunder minimum (which various proxy data such as tree rings suggest was not global). The links have been investigated since 19th Century, many people have tried to find a connection and failed. To say that there is a strong association with sunspot cycles and global temperatures requires a very selective examination of evidence.
For despite all of the outward appearance of change, the actual measurable level of energy reaching the earth varied by less than 0.1%. This is the "lack of mechanism". Lots of things have been investigated - solar wind, flux, etc.
This is currently becoming a bit of a current issue because of the famous Solar Cycle 24 - the overdue sunspot cycle which refuses to start - in combination with some recent temperature measurements, over the last few months, that show a bit of cooling. However it pays not to sensationalise such short-term results; climate trends are observed on the scale of decades!

The science goes on.

Mmm. Especially if you bother to read the various papers that explain it!
Most of the concerns in this long list of doubts are also covered in the AIP book. Before buying any of them, you might like to read the history to see how long ago each of these challenges were first raised. I must confess I bought them, and now I want my money back.

In the 1970s, climate science was concerned about when the next ice age might commence; we may have to return to that position.One article from Newsweek in the 1970s does not constitute the body of scientific opinion. Additionally, Professor Kearsley is not an authority on the area - a search of his research (http://tinyurl.com/692mte) indicates his expertise lies in tourism - though I'd be happy if he could point to peer-reviewed articles on climate science. He is right that scientific rigor is required, but his scepticism in the face of decades of scientific research is a quixotic exercise. Indeed it is reminiscent of the proponents of intelligent design challenging the theory of evolution.

Actually Dr Hansen is a climate scientist. And physics being the basis of almost all science would be a perfect study for some who tries to model and understand such a complex situation.

It's reassuring to see more and more people with the courage of Prof. Kearsley pointing out that the emperor is naked. It's equally reassuring to see that the alarmists still have little but vilification to offer in defense of their pet theory.
I note that in its July edition of Physics & Society, the American Physical Society has launched an open debate on whether carbon dioxide emissions are the likely cause of 20th century warming, acknowledging "a considerable presence in the scientific community of people who do not agree" with that idea. This is significant in that the organisation is on record as subscribing fully to the anthropogenic global warming theory, but clearly considers the dissenting views significant enough and respectable enough to disassociate itself from tantrum-like assertions that "the debate is over."
We may yet save ourselves from the worst consequences of ideologically-driven "science."

To wavicle:
The NASA data was recently determined to have a significant inaccuracy, and after correction the new data showed the warmest year on record was in 1934. Since NASA's data is suspect, and NASA's James Hansen was so reticent about correcting it after the errors were pointed out, I would not put all my faith in their information.
There are many publications that show global temperature peaked in 1998. Considering the the theory of the AGW alarmists is that global warming will increase continuously as carbon is emitted into the atmosphere, there is a major disconnect between observed facts and theory.
Also, the observations that indications of global warming were seen on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and even Pluto, throw another wrench into the AGW machinery (unless my SUV is emitting so much greenhouse gas that it is polluting the entire solar system).
From another article I read earlier today:
As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Vacationed this past June in Montana USA. Went to Glacier National Park - beautiful. Saw US Government display teaching how one-third of USA was covered by ice 12,000 years ago (the Ice Age) and has been warming ever since with glaciers receding. This made me ask, "What was mankind's carbon footprint back then? How did we make the earth warm?" The obvious answer is, "Man has has nothing to do with global warming historically."
Obviously we have an effect at the fringes - local heat spots where we have large cities, etc. but to think that we are having a greater effect than the sun... delusional!

Maybe just maybe this article may have been worth while if some evidence of the continued relationship of global temperature and solar cycle length had be established. However there is data available that clearly shows the temperature is no longer coupled to solar cycle length.

I have a graph of temperature and sunspot number that is on my blog where the lack of relationship in recent times (last 50 years) can clearly be seen

http://relativelyscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-and-sun.html

Wavicle - GISS temps show a continued increase since 1998, but GISS temps have been "adjusted" by Dr. Hansen (also not a climate scientist - actually he's a physicist by training and qualification, and therefore not a climate scientist per se) and his staff for no readily explained reason(s). Temperatures, according to other reputable sources (including satellite records), have been decreasing since 1998, and 2005 is not the warmest year on record. 1934 was.
Solar cycle variations *are* consistent with temperature measurements, excluding the fiasco of Dr Mann's tree-ring proxies, and further well-established theories such as the Milankovitch cycle are also consistent with temperature variations. AGW is just a theory, and the models used to "prove" it (unscientific in the extreme) are rudimentary and flawed.
Believing the hype, whether you are a qualified scientist or not, marks you as a sheep, not a rational, thinking human being.

An interesting article - I always did find Geoff to be a most entertaining lecturer!
I do believe that it is true we are not in possession of all the facts on Climate Change and I believe it is always important to refer to it as that and not 'Global Warming', as when people hear this and then experience a cold day or two they become very sceptical. Whilst I am not convinced we need to hurtle down the track of carbon trading schemes and the like, I also think it is potentially dangerous to give people who are living environmentally irresponsible lifestyles too much ammunition to maintain the status quo. It is clear we are turning the Earth into a big rubbish dump and are not treating it with the respect it deserves. I believe it is necessary to draw people's attention to our effects on the planet and to encourage everybody to 'clean up their act' - regardless of whether we think the end of the world is nigh or not.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but there are some blatantly wrong facts in this opinion piece. Temperatures have not been decreasing since 1998. Sunspot cycle periods are not consistent with the longer term trend of increasing average temperatures. 2005 was the warmest year on record, and was not an El Nino year like 1998. If you think global warming is stopping, have a look at the data presented in Nasa's graphs.
I'm afraid that if you don't believe actual measurements of temperature taken around the world, then you are a lost cause. Geoffrey Kearsley is not a climate scientist - he is a professor of media studies. Trusting his analysis of climate change is like trusting a public relations manager to diagnose appendicitis.

There is great good sense in this article.
In terms of the mechanism whereby the sun influences climate consider the following: Ultraviolet radiation that varies with sunspot activity drives temperature at 200hPa (9km) over the tropics. It has been established that cirrus cloud density there varies inversely with 200hPa temperature. So, more sunspots means less albedo, more sunlight gets through to the surface, the ocean warms and the ocean currents carry this warmth to high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. More warmth in winter in Northern Europe and Siberia is the result. This is the pattern of the last three solar cycles, namely a strong dominance of tropical warming events in the calendar.
Less or no sunspots and cirrus cloud density increases across the tropics, Siberia gets very cold. An outflow of very cold air from Siberia in winter collapses temperatures in China and Canada. This is the current pattern and while solar cycle 24 fails to kick in this pattern will continue.
Winter in Northern Europe and Canada in 2007-2008 has been bitter. That was a product of a relatively cool Southern Hemisphere summer in 2006-7. A cold winter in 2008-9 has already been set up by the La Nina of 2008. In the absence of sunspots through till April 2009, as seems likely, the tropical oceans will not gather the necessary warmth in next Southern Hemisphere summer to warm northern latitudes in winter 2009-2010. So, the northern Hemisphere faces two more bitter winters. Perhaps this will shake the European confidence in their notion of 'Global Warming'.
Hopefully, we will not be saddled with debilitating carbon taxes before the Sun/Earth system demonstrates our lack of understanding of the factors that drive global temperature.
Coal is still the cheapest energy source and it can be liquefied.
Carbon dioxide rates as just one twenty fifth of one percent of the mass of the atmosphere and it is photosynthesis by plants creating the basic building block for life, carbohydrate, that keeps it to that very low level. More CO2 and plants lose less water through their breathing apparatus. More CO2 will enable a gradual greening of the deserts and the Earth can better support it's burgeoning population.
The atmosphere is exceedingly thin. From the Greek, 'Tropos', in 'troposphere' means turning. It turns regardless of its CO2 content. The atmosphere is not a blanket. It's a very efficient ventilator.

Thank you Prof Geoffrey. I hope more top scientists are brave enough to talk common sense rather than join the prophets of doom.
Delicately put. I agree whole-heartedly.
I hope thinking people who have been caught in the tide of the new GW religion will take a step back, ponder this article and begin their own crusade to discover that the evidence weighs in as the sun being the primary culprit of climate change. I too was carried along in the media frenzy of climate doom being spoon fed to us daily. I have discovered there is another take on this, you just don't often hear about it.
The earth does not have a fever as Al Gore chants at every opportunity, but the Sun may very well have a very bad cold. As we on earth seem to hang around the Sun a lot, early indications (not scientific consensus, God forbid)are that Earth seems to have a chill.
Try googling "global cooling" and you will start to get another perspective on climate change. Also try "non-governmental panel on climate change" or NIPCC.
Go on, I dare you to blaspheme!