If not, you need to.

Repeatable experiment's are the basis for theories being proven as scientific fact. But you know that.

BTW - Some studies have shown that CO2 increases lag temperature increases. That means that CO2 is not the cause, but the effect.

You also need to remember this:

Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

A link you will not like but it is accurate.

Stanford - M.S. Electrical Engineering

University of Sidney - M.S. Statistics

University of Sidney - B.E. Electrical Engineering (First Class Honors)

University of Sidney - M.A. Applied Mathematics

University of Sidney - B.Sc Applied Mathematics and Physics

Patents - 2

Of course I'm sure he isn't as smart as Algore...

;-)

And yes, the experiment does establish that the sun does cause climate change.

Read the emails from EAU if you want to understand the censorship being imposed.

In the meantime, try and be open minded enough to understand this.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world's largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth's atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done -- - demonstrate that cosmic rays can seed clouds, and that the more that cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere, the cloudier it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

snip

Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid "the highly political arena of the climate change debate," telling them "to present the results clearly but not interpret them" and to downplay the results by "mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby's study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph -- only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won't yet permit a celebration of the find

link

You know, I don't understand the bias many on the Left have towards believing in MMGW. I would think they would be biased towards not believing, thus freeing up all the money spent on "research" for research on AIDS, cancer, heart disease and other killers of mankind.

Yet they don't. Read what Evans wrote:

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

However, the main error Evans makes here is to claim that climate sensitivity is simply a number churned out by climate models.  In reality, climate scientists have used many different lines of evidence to create numerous independent estimates of the planet's climate sensitivity.  These include not just climate models, but also empirical observational data (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The hoaxers keep missing their claims. First it was that and then this and now it could be.

I mean, the first was the hockey stick which has been proven wrong.