Whats an explanation of the theory from " The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The theory is that sun spots protect the earth from gamma rays and gamma rays help form clouds. Thus, more sun spots means fewer clouds and more energy hitting the earth. Solar activity thus correlates with earth warming. (This guy Maxx who is always ranting here about GWS doesn't even understand the theory, this guy hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Svensgard's theory does not talk at all about irradiance or "power" or "output", and sun spots are not an indication of irradiance.) There are several problems with Svengard's theory. Greatest of these is that he was busted by other solar scientists and finally admitted that his theory explains zero of the global warming over the past 40 years. Only after global warming from some other souce could he make his correlations hold. So, even if his theory is correct, the effect of solar activity is minor compared to the greenhouse effect and might have had contributed some up and some down the net effect has been nothing. The theory does nothing to prove or disprove the effects of CO2. We also know that it is not the sun causing the warming because nights are warming faster than days; were the sun the cause of the warming it would be the days that warmed most. Svensmark's is an interesting theory and may be a part of predicting climate. But is it just a very small part compared to the chemistry of the atmosphere.

Which version of the GGW swindle? The original version, or the later updated edit where the director was forced to remove some of the lies and purposeful misrepresentations he made of actual scientists when he edited their comments to make it sound like they said what he wanted them to say (without including their clarifications) and altering graphs to to change what the science showed? http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178 Basically they are saying that the rise in temps was due to the sun, which is bullshit because solar activity has been declining sine the early 90s but temps went up. NASA's most recent paper discussing climate sensitivity shows that the sun can only account for about half of the warming trend. Hansen et al (2011). Earth's energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.html

The theory is that sun spots protect the earth from gamma rays and gamma rays help form clouds. Thus, more sun spots means fewer clouds and more energy hitting the earth. Solar activity thus correlates with earth warming. (This guy Maxx who is always ranting here about GWS doesn't even understand the theory, this guy hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Svensgard's theory does not talk at all about irradiance or "power" or "output", and sun spots are not an indication of irradiance.) There are several problems with Svengard's theory. Greatest of these is that he was busted by other solar scientists and finally admitted that his theory explains zero of the global warming over the past 40 years. Only after global warming from some other souce could he make his correlations hold. So, even if his theory is correct, the effect of solar activity is minor compared to the greenhouse effect and might have had contributed some up and some down the net effect has been nothing. The theory does nothing to prove or disprove the effects of CO2. We also know that it is not the sun causing the warming because nights are warming faster than days; were the sun the cause of the warming it would be the days that warmed most. Svensmark's is an interesting theory and may be a part of predicting climate. But is it just a very small part compared to the chemistry of the atmosphere.

Which version of the GGW swindle? The original version, or the later updated edit where the director was forced to remove some of the lies and purposeful misrepresentations he made of actual scientists when he edited their comments to make it sound like they said what he wanted them to say (without including their clarifications) and altering graphs to to change what the science showed? http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178 Basically they are saying that the rise in temps was due to the sun, which is bullshit because solar activity has been declining sine the early 90s but temps went up. NASA's most recent paper discussing climate sensitivity shows that the sun can only account for about half of the warming trend. Hansen et al (2011). Earth's energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.html

There is no theory on that topic. Global warming is recognized as being real by all scientists working in the field of climate and atmospheric phenomena. Sunspots are not an indicator of the sun's energy output. Sunspots go through a cycle of increasing and decreasing activity that lasts about 11 years from maximum to maximum. We are currently at a maximum. But 5 years ago, we were at a minimum and had the hottest year ever recorded. So I would conclude that the "swindle" is that the sun causes global warming - It does not.

There is no theory on that topic. Global warming is recognized as being real by all scientists working in the field of climate and atmospheric phenomena. Sunspots are not an indicator of the sun's energy output. Sunspots go through a cycle of increasing and decreasing activity that lasts about 11 years from maximum to maximum. We are currently at a maximum. But 5 years ago, we were at a minimum and had the hottest year ever recorded. So I would conclude that the "swindle" is that the sun causes global warming - It does not.

The "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been debunked. http://kingsgreenpad.ca/?p=1527 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&feature=player_embedded Madd Maxx <Atmospheric CO2 is ONLY 0.039% (0.00039) according to Wiki.> You need to know properties of a gas for such numbers to have any meaning. That is plenty to keep plants alive. And how would you like to inhale 0.039% of these gases? Hydrogen sulfide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide Hydrogen cyanide? http://creationwiki.org/Hydrogen_cyanide phosgene? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene or radon? http://www.webelements.com/radon/isotopes.html <And 97% of that CO2 in the atmosphere is NATURAL, only 3% of the total CO2 in the air is man-made.> That is absolutely false. Preindustrial concentration of CO2 was 280ppm and it is now over 390ppm. 30% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is from human sources. Maxx Your graph does not have good enough resolution to be able to see what has been happening recently. Here is a better graph. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm You're welcome. (My response for Maxx' thank you.)

Which one, it tried to push several of the deniers favorites, maxx highlights just the 'solar variation theory' but they also claimed it was all a conspiracy 'yawn' but they have no evidence for this claim and they know it and as for the solar variation theory, look at maxx's graph http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2007/5256fig2and3_large.png in the bottom right corner you see the name Soon a scientist long associated with denial, the graph shows a solid increase in solar activity between 1970 and 2000, maxx of course will believe anything as long as it is anti-AGW, sadly the only word I could use to describe Soon's graph is 'fake', it matches the real data in no way, look closely at the solar max of ~1980 and on Soon's graph the stronger solar max of ~1990 then try to find that increase on this taken from the real data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png That was also the option of one of the scientists who was in the film (Eigil Friis-Christensen) but then asked for his input be removed as he was being taken out of context, and his complaint forced the removal of another graph on solar activity which he described as being built from "fabricated data" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Eigil_Friis-Christensen Also, as is common with a number of other graphs in TGGWS (2007), they seem to magically stop in 2000, this is pretty simple to explain as well, if they showed later data their arguments fall apart as the Sun has not increase in activity at all it has in fact decreased slightly, but deniers don't seem to question or even notice such glaring faking. I wonder why if they know as much about science as some of them claim. TGGWS was condemned by many scientists for it's many obvious errors. Another theme pushed in this piece of rubbish was AGW would "Kill the African dream of development" this is a theme also pushed by many deniers, at least when their not pushing the theory that it's all a plot to give our money to the third world (which would include Africa) deniers can't seem to make up their minds, although the do seem quite good at making up theories, lots and lots and lots of theories, and many like the two above contradict each other.

The "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been debunked. http://kingsgreenpad.ca/?p=1527 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&feature=player_embedded Madd Maxx <Atmospheric CO2 is ONLY 0.039% (0.00039) according to Wiki.> You need to know properties of a gas for such numbers to have any meaning. That is plenty to keep plants alive. And how would you like to inhale 0.039% of these gases? Hydrogen sulfide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide Hydrogen cyanide? http://creationwiki.org/Hydrogen_cyanide phosgene? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene or radon? http://www.webelements.com/radon/isotopes.html <And 97% of that CO2 in the atmosphere is NATURAL, only 3% of the total CO2 in the air is man-made.> That is absolutely false. Preindustrial concentration of CO2 was 280ppm and it is now over 390ppm. 30% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is from human sources. Maxx Your graph does not have good enough resolution to be able to see what has been happening recently. Here is a better graph. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm You're welcome. (My response for Maxx' thank you.)