[Ronald Pagan]

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

Laugh. I love how you quote this passage of all passages as it's the one that has been the most thoroughly discredited by real science. Statistical evaluation of solar cycles have shown ZERO correlation with global temperatures. This argument isn't even on the map in the scientific community.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05072.html

The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

Regarding this argument:

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ? This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Myers should stick to chemistry. The fact that he doesn't understand even the most basic idea of an equilibrium is scary.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11638

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from 315ppm to 375ppm has consequences on the global climate. This argument is just frankly idiotic.

The one with the most substance is Loehle's evaluation of the MWP. The article is up for much debate but the fact that there was a MWP does not disprove anthropogenic climate change. There are some serious methodological questions with Loehle's framework and the fact that he chooses to omit some important data like tree rings.

In conclusion, if these are the most credible scientific arguments you can find disproving anthropogenic climate change then I think you should reconsider your bias.