Is Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council believable

Nope they won't consider any data that is contrary to their beliefs.

It wouldn't help Al Gore sell carbon credits.

We do need to have real scientific debate on this subject than the shrill voices that have taken over it.

If Kenneth Tapping wrote his finding from research in a scientific journal, I'd certainly consider his information as data to consider. But an editorial written by a non-scientist isn't.

An editorial is generally written by a non-expert who's trying to prove their point. Neither fact-checking or peer review is done on an editorial. Whereas, article published in scientific journals are checked anonymously by other experts in the subject matter to help catch errors and mistakes.

In this particular editorial it said:

[QUOTE]

the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

[END article QUOTE]

This would never have gotten published in a scientific journal because it is a complete mischaracterization of what the Max Planck Institute has found.

The Max Planck Institute actually says:

"solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming"

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentati...

Why would you trust an editorial writer who's this incompetent or intentionally deceptive? Kenneth Trapping may have valid information, but this editorial is definitely not the place to find it.

Dr. Tapping is a respected researcher who is excited about a new solar cycle and his prospects to study it. (The anonymous editorialists aren't.)

But the interview presents no new data. Sunspot activity is always quiet between cycles and the new cycle only began Jan 4th. He speculates what might happen if a phenomena that's occurred just once in the last 400 years were to unexpectedly return.

Assuming the sunspot cycle stayed bottomed out (a HUGE if) the sun's output would probably drop 1 part in 1,360, or less than 0.1% overall. The effects of extra Greenhouse Gases are now about 2.7 times that large and will rise to ~4 times as large (3.7 watts/m2) after CO2 levels double.

So a solar minimum might fool us into thinking our problems weren't as serious for a few decades. Then after regular solar cycles returned we'd be worse off. Action to control global warming taken now will be more effective and less expensive than delay.

There are many scientists that believe along the same line as Tapping.

A list of those can be found here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_t...

It is great reading and will help you dispel the idea that the GW debate is over.

These scientists are well respected in their fields and make great arguments for non human caused GW.

I think this statement from your web page is a gross understatement: = "But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance."

I've also been following sun cycles here:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

No matter what they say - the overdue solar cycle 24 has not truly started. This should deeply concern anyone following weather patterns. If we are facing another solar minimum - we could be facing another ice age - which could depopulate the earth substantially.

Read about the effects of the Wolfe Minimum & Bubonic Plague here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/

I find it surprising that you would present a popular press summary of the work of a scientist from 1991.

I would prefer to have a peer-reviewed paper produced in the past 5 years. Not a summary by some non-scientist with an obvious agenda.

I recognize that scientists ar busy people and often present their work with a view to being understood primarily by fellow scientists, ie for peer review. Would we even understand them?

Well, yes, I am able to understand them, and I am also able to discern that the article presented is not a paper that would be presented for peer review, and has not been presented for peer review.

For the record, Ken Tapping is not the author of the editorial. His actual views were completely misrepresented. See here for details: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/dont_trust...

Yes, he's believable - and he's a GW person. To read what he says on the issue:

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/

Without even looking at your link. Probably yes and definitely Yes.

Data is in the eyes of the beholders preconceived ideas.

Is it getting warmer on Mars. Yes.

Are we to blame for that.

Is this George Bush's fault too.