We don't dispute that there may have been some global warming since the turn of the century. Even though it is quite likely some of the measurements were distorted and there is still some dispute over whether we've really warmed at all (see ”If The Globe Is Warming Why Are The Oceans Not?” and ”The Earth may have actually COOLED in the past 60 years!”. But we'll assume for a minute that the earth really has warmed 0.7°C in the past 100 years. That is certainly within the realm of natural variability. Below are links to peer reviewed and/or major scientific journal articles backing the case for a natural cause for global warming. Man has always blamed other men (and women) for bad weather. Medieval peasants burned people at the stake believing that they were witches causing the bad weather. Lets not be so ignorant this time around. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, this is just one of them (one of the milder one's I might add).

So why haven't you heard of these studies? Perhaps the following could answer that question:

On the evening of Sunday, August 10, I asked for citations of research papers in reputable scientific journals that examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and global warming and that quantified the extent of this warming.** In most areas of science, when a clearly articulated theory dominates, a student can nominate several seminal papers that have influenced and directed thinking in that area.

Many people believe increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide lead to increases in temperature. This can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but when you scale up laboratory experiments to the real world, what happens? We know from ice cores that global temperatures have decreased in the past even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise. There are some so-called skeptics who claim that in the real world the radiation forcing of carbon dioxide is overwhelmed by the more powerful constraints of evaporation cooling from the tropical oceans.

I cross-posted my request for papers as a comment on John Quiggin’s blog as I was interested to see what those who follow the issue and generally subscribe to AWG theory would suggest by way of best papers. The next morning my request turned into a bet when Michael Duffy offered to put up $1,000.

With this outlook on the subject, the two researchers further suggest that "variations in TSI are indicative of the sun's turbulent dynamics," as represented by "changes in the number, duration, and intensity of solar flares and sunspots, and by the intermittency in the time intervals between dark spots and bright faculae," which variability has the capacity to "move the global temperature up and down for tens or even hundreds of years." But, as the saying goes, talk is cheap. So where's the evidence for this belief?

A list but by no means comprehensive:

How do you explain that global temperatures according to UN data have not increased since 1998 and there has been no significant warming since 1995?

(See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK Here and Here)

Are you aware that even the UN IPCC does not consider climate models to be “predictions” or “forecasts” but merely emission scenarios?

(See high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, referred to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.” (LINK)

The truth: Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear- mongering.”