http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI

All possible forcing evidence should be considered.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/

No one is denying that the sun is practically the sole source of energy of our ecosystem (geothermal heat being the small exception). But IPCC is not discussing the Earth energy budget but climate *change*. Therefore what is important are the changes in parameters, not their values. The changes are called forcings in the climate researchers’ lingo.

The point is that observations do not support the hipothesis that solar variability is the cause of a large port of the warming of recent decades. It is most probable the main reason of the warming in the early decades of the 20th century but solar irradiation flux has actually *decreased* a little during the last three decades so it actually slows down the global warming rather than causes it.

But the reason of the leak is not even variability in solar radiation but hypotheses of the influence of cosmic rays on Earth climate which are theoretically plausible but have little support in actual observation data. However, according to your logic they are irrelevant as energetically they are negligible next to solar radiation. See where the solar energy domination argument leads you?

And the issue is whether the Sun’s modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays (charged atomic particles – mainly protons) can in turn influence climate by some mans unknown. The IPCC report explains why this is not likely. Its important to read and understand what is being said.

While not a sceptic per se, the political nature and defensiveness of the IPCC doesn’t sit well with me. They are researchers working in a field with a high amount of error, rather low resolution data, and somewhat questionable sampling and statistical methods. Yet their reports directly influence global politics.