Couldn't agree more.  Its not like any of the things we would be doing to prevent global warming would really harm us in the long run.  Most of them would get us exactly what this country needs, energy indpendence.

For whatever reason though, some people are just adamantly opposed to doing anything about global warming on principle.

Its like saying that being nice to your girlfriend is a bad idea because you have done a study that shows being nice to her won't get you laid, but then you don't get laid anyways because you act like an ass instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Global_warming

Gives a good general idea and lots of links to respectable scientific articles saying pretty much that solar variation is clearly not the cause of warming in the second half of the 20th century. I don't know what data your graph follows or what the sources are or anything.

Most people I have ever talked to agree that for socio-ecconomic, security and environmental reasons it makes sense to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels. From what I have seen, most proposed "solutions" to global warming are not focused on reducing (worldwide) dependancy on fossil fuels, they are about monetary transfers from wealthy western nations to developing nations and the offloading of fossil fuel use from western nations with environmental regulation to developing nations without environmental regulation.

Those use reconstructions via computer models.

When your basis is that said models don't work because they are incomplete and don't even account for half the variables in the world it really isn't much proof to you when people say their models match up with what they want.

This is further shown by the fact that they say solar brightness isn't an issue but they couldn't rule out a number of factors related to it because they don't have models for it yet.

Furthermore... (if this has been contradicted since feb let me know.)

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

"A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

Aside from which... he asked if he saw a graph like that.  Not if it was accurate.

That's precisely what I mean by "erring on the side of caution". Let's do the things which might reduce global warming, they're good things even if they don't achieve that aim.

It doesn't seem we disagree here.

However we do.  I'm saying we shouldn't focus on things that might reduce global warming.

I'm saying we should focus on things that will reduce global warming.  No matter the cause.

The things that we focus on now will only stop Global Warming if it's man made.

Little in comparison is put towards things that will stop Global Warming even if it's natural.

That's what I'm saying too, with the exception that my phrasing doesn't assume we can reduce global warming.

I'm going for the most general position possible - eliminate all the unproven assumptions. Some say it's not proven we can do anything about it. I say fine, ignore that and let's do the right things anyway. This way, virtually no one will disagree.

How do you eliminate natural global warming?

I promise you all the money in the world, without question, the #1 factor contributing to global warming is the sun. No question.

Without it, we would be a lot colder ;)

Disrupt the carbon cycle process.

Find ways to take much more carbon out of the air then we put in.  For examle genetically engineered seaweed that absorbds CO2 and then just dies.

I believe someone was working on that... or maybe just studying a type of seaweed that absorbs CO2.

Of course another advantage is that this seaweed can even be used in biofuels and the like.