[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts.. And yet the first paragraph of his reference reads.. And yet the reference shows a definite lack of consensus among some scientists, i'e,' conjecture about the suns influence? You proved my point that there is no real consensus in the scientific community.

Define real consensus.
At any rate, the second article I cited talks about a paper published 2 years later which is rather more conclusive.
Note though, it is by no means absolute and I don't claim otherwise but this is what the data tell us and that's all we can conclude for now.

Quote by: xyzer And you didn't show whether the suns influence was used in the IPCC data and resultant report?

I knew you had no idea what the IPCC report was about. The IPCC is about reviewing all the studies carried out around the world by climatologists, therefore, the scientific papers are cited will have been taken into account.

Quote by: xyzer I asked you to point it out as a factor in the models you so implicitly trust. Talk about substance? Where is it? As usual you are sidestepping the issue?

You made the accusation, you must prove it first. Seems like you can't debate properly at all.

Quote by: xyzer Facts about incoming solar/cosmic particles.. 14% absorbed by earths atmosphere 7% reflected by earths atmosphere 24% reflected by clouds 4% reflected by oceans and land 51% absorbed by earths surface. Heat is a climate maker! Content of earths atmosphere: 78% Nitrogen 21% Oxygen 0.93% Argon less than .07% C02. Human caused contribution less than that. Some smaller part of that .07% Is it logical to say that by us changing our consumption of fossil fuels by some small amount that we will in effect place less of a block on the reflection of the suns heat back into space? And cause the earth to become warmer? Even the IPCC people stated that even if we could change CO2 levels it would take a couple of centuries to see any effects?

You're assuming that because CO2 is in relatively low concentrations, it is insignificant in terms of thermal absorbance. Or rather, you want to play this meaningless numbers game. If it were that simple to model climate then we wouldn't be having this debate.
Furthermore, if you're willing to accept what the IPCC says about continued warming, then surely you should agree that we need to be more proactive about reducing emissions and find ways to remove it from the atmosphere?