Have you ever noticed how climate change skeptics have the user name squirrel or an abbreviation on that word. Perhaps there is a connection, hmmm lol.

I went back and re-read your posts.

Is it fare to say your position is climate change is happening, but it’s unclear the root cause?

LOL - Actually, people used to think we were the same person =P 

Not that I can blame them - the similarities in views are pretty striking.

 I think he was referring to the fingerprint post - and I don't think he meant you specifically anyways. 

Ahh no, i think i just went about my business and got tired of providing space for even more widely disputed evidence. The information i was reffering too was a PBS/BBC (ie.gov. funded channel) style news story that took into account the end of a solar cycle, and the expected "real" global warming temp. effects that will become more severe.

So you just got bored right as I pointed out you were wrong and provided new information to that effect? 

Thank you for proving my point again.  Anyone with a basic level of intellectual curiosity would have been far from bored but instead intrigued to learn abou this new information that had previously escaped them.  "Boredom" tells me you were not interested in learning about your mistake, which in turn speaks volumes about your motivations.  At the very least it shows a lack of basic intellectual curiosity on this issue.

PS - Did you just say that NASA's SC predictions are "widely disputed evidence"?  Because I wasn't presenting them as evidence against AGW for one and for two I'm kind of surprised at that dismissive a view of NASAs prediction. Interesting.

Apologies for that comment, I didn't mean it to sound quite so flippant .

To be perfectly honest I don't know where my position lies. I would say that I think there is sufficiently strong evidence to suggest that greenhouse gases may have been a factor in previous natural climate cycles and that therefore manmade emissions (which have caused CO2 levels to rise higher than anytime over the past 0.5 million years) is at least a cause for concern. As others have pointed out, it is a given that these gases do trap heat, however, the degree of this effect is unclear. There are so many other feedback factors that affect the climate that it is too difficult to make any sort of accurate predicition. For example, if temperatures increases then ice melts. Ice is the best reflector of sunlight and so as it diminishes, temperatures increase and more ice melts ect. Then again, as ice volume decreases it is easier for ice to accumulate at ice cap margins and so ice grows and temperatures decrease. There are many other examples and so any current models are just that, models based on the best data available but in no way certain.

So, I think global warming is possible (and most likely probable) with continued high emmissions but this change could be anything from miniscule to quite severe.

Then we have the same opinion. I know the world is changing, I just have yet to see anything that tells me why. The #1 source of energy, is without question, the Sun. I am going to think the obvious (the sun heats up, we heat up. The sun cools down, we cool down) until some shows me evidence to the contrary.

So far, that's been the case.

I never stated my views on Solar climate influence, you assumed them.

I pointed out that your assessment that the new solar cycle was going to mean "IT IS GETTING HOTTER FASTER." was wrong.  Something the article definitely supports.  You were substantively wrong about the implications of the upcoming SC and demonstrably so.

Now, you are making assumptions about my views as a defense to that mistake.

Ok, lets take a breath and just make this easy:

Megaman could you address the question that I asked you to answer twice before?

To restate for your convenience: Have you taken the time to read the substance of any of the research papers I linked?

If so:
What are your thoughts on their discussion of Solar Variability?
What are your thoughts on their discussion of Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing from just ONE of the sections in that chapter (you can choose the section)?
What are your thoughts on any aspect of the substance presented in the paper at all?

Note - the fingerprint thing I mentioned above is discussed on page 106-107.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

If not:
In that case we are quite done. I won't subject myself to a discussion where I'm expected to supply seemingly endless information that won't be taken into account or discussed even.