[xyzer]

I have already posted this half a dozen times but I do so again; the cooling was due to human activities, and it was our act of change that ironically, allowed the warming to increase again. This is another demonstration of how I have refuted your misleading points and you have conveniently ignored it, only to repost the same thing again some time down the line. I have no doubt that you will bring up this point again in a few weeks time, only to be shot down...again.

I wont bother to check the record but I doubt that I've ever read an admission from you that cooling(1940/70 period) was caused by human activity?
But lets address your reference on the matter..From... New Scientist Environment..A site with a high sounding name but no authenticity? How do we know it represents anything but an agenda? These two paragraphs point out the problem..

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The statement about the rise in industrial activity after the end of WW2(1945, doesn't match the cooling that had already started in 1940? There was no major change in industrial production in the USA starting in 1946 and the European countries and Japan were destitute and unable to produce much of anything for a decade or more after the war? Good old logic would tell the less gullible that these two paragraphs are flawed ?

The eruption of the volcano(1963) didn't occur until the end of the cooling period?
Which was 1940-1970? So that statement is flawed...illogical?

I don't have time at present to check the rest of this example of an attempt at global warming fraud, but it isobvious. It joins the rest of the illogical hype that surrounds climate change? Omly the the naive believe it implicitly? Naive is a polite word for gullible.I say the author of this gibberish lies!