(Mods bear with me, before locking/Removing) In PP's recent thread: https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51496 He linked to an article which he somehow used as justification for his point of view regarding GW is not man made. Frankly, I don't get how he made that leap, BUT, PP made a fundamental or deliberate mistake... not sure which is was, but either of which frankly paints him with his pants around his ankles... along with some of his credibility. However, the linked article actually said this: Notice the deliberate or bias induced error? Either way, it does clearly bring into focus the information set PP is using in his own mind, and certainly brings into question what he says and how he understands/interprets what he reads. Then he linked to an article about global cooling and the link to the sun. When I look at the graph UP TO Jan '07, my engineering eye reckons a line of best fit has an upward slope, suggesting an increasing average :-k ...is it just me?? Or am I biased?? Here, you have a look. Yep, there's definite sharp drop since Jan '07, but the article surmises that El Nina is the reason for the recent drop in temperature. There are some folks heralding this drop as the harbinger of global cooling... but it's El Nina... so frankly, the linked article which PP used to support his case, does him NO FAVOURS at all. :? WTF?? Then, if you read through the posted comments (I got through about half before I ran out of steam), the author is right behind forced CO2 warming, and the folks who feel they're in the know post freely without any kind of general agreement. Finally, the original author in a response to a comment, links to an article that totally debunks the connection between solar activity and global warming and laid GW right in the hands of CO2. Frankly, I'm utterly confused. :? I don't profess to understand this stuff, but I've read most of PP's stuff and just between you, me and the entire internet, I have no idea how PP keeps it all straight in his mind! On the finer points of climate change, PP appears to be slipperier than a grease encased river eel on an olive oil topcoated iced up teflon skid pan... Frankly, I reckon he's baffling me with batshit. Perhaps I need to engage MG to research ALL OF PP's posts and determine whether there's a consistent theme or a change or it's completely random? Anyway, in the mean time, somebody please help me out here. Without getting into PP bashing, could someone summarise in 100 words or less, the thrust of PP's understanding on the cause(s) and future direction of global climate change? :? Thanks.