do natural processes explain the warming? 'no', page-18

Yeah, nice one Awright, don't even bother referencing your charts. Usual story. It is clearly from Wikipedia and I don't have a problem with it except for the fact that it is almost meaningless in this context. The far more important chart is from the same page. Here it is:



It clearly shows solar irradiance has dropped in the last few years, completely undermining the sceptic and denialist arguments. Plus it is an 11 year cycle and does not explain the longer term warming trend. But you didn't want to show that did you? Cherry pick the sunspot chart which conveniently shows an increase. Too bad it is the solar irradiance which is the most important measure, because that is the measure of the amount of heat in the form of incoming solar radiation hitting the earth. But that's a little inconvenient for you isn't it?

Not only that, the very same Wikipedia page says this:

"The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.[45]"

But you didn't want to quote that did you?

Why doesn't eveyone here just read the Copenhagen Diagnosis report and see what they think instead of automatically bagging it in a knee jerk reaction?