Here Comes the Sun -- Yet Again!
It's all due to the sun -- according to a guest column in the Ft. Wayne News Sentinel. Unfortunately, none but a few contrarian scientists -- many paid by coal and oil interests -- believe that.
Virtually all legitimate climate scientists conclude that while the sun was the dominant external influence on the climate until about 150 years ago, it has since been swamped by greenhouse gases which, today, comprise about 85 percent of the external influences on the climate.
Scientists, moreover, say that, absent our burning of coal and oil, we would be looking forward to a stable, comfortable climate for the next 15,000 years. The column provides a great platform for such contrarians as Richard Lindzen -- whose assertions have long been examined and dismissed by the world's community of climate scientists -- as well as the assertions of Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, whose work has been discredited and is funded by, among others, the American Petroleum Institute. Too bad he didn't pay more attention to the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The column (yes, I provided a link to the article, since you didn't) by James K. Boomer in the Ft. Wayne Sun-Sentinel makes a lot more sense scientifically than this post. You don't need a PhD to realize that as long as the the Sun exists, with the possible exception of a meteor strike big enough to make the Earth explode, the Sun is always going to be the dominant "external influence" on our planet. That says nothing about CO2's influence one way or the other, but the Sun has a larger influence and you undermine yourself when you write something as silly as what you posted.
You also are rather weird about the IPCC. You seem to think it is the last word on everything, and yet Lindzen - whose work, you claim, has "long been examined and dismissed by the world's community of climate scientists" - was actively part of the IPCC process. If Lindzen has no credibility, why did the IPCC bring him in? And why does MIT (yes, the incredibly prestigious MIT) pay him?
By the way, your link proving "Scientists, moreover, say that, absent our burning of coal and oil, we would be looking forward to a stable, comfortable climate for the next 15,000 years" actually only quotes a single PhD saying we won't have another Ice Age for 15,000 years. While that is nice to know, it seem irrelevant to the content of the article in the Ft. Wayne Sun-Sentinel.
Since the article was on your own website, I wonder why you are unclear about its content. Maybe you figured no one clicks the links?