Is this really an argument against AGW?

In science the only source of reliable information is the peer-reviewed literature. Arguments abound, individuals dissent and debate is carried out in public and political circles. None of the opinions given by journalist and the popular press, political pundits or any secondary source of information is as credible as the peer-reviewed literature.

If AGW is to be discredited it must be the weight of peer-reviewed research that does so, not by cleverly crafted arguments presented outside that process meant to impress and draw adherents to one side of a political debate.

So, the answer is no.

The core problem I am seeing here is the basic inability of liberal minds to the extreme complexities of real science. I will try and simplify the issue to where a liberal might possibly be able to get the fact that it is the sun which causes both global warming and ice ages. Our sun varies its natural output by about 15% from its hottest to its coolest. This causes the planets surrounding the sun to warm up and cool off according to the output level of the sun. For the last 300 years our sun has been in a moderate high output mode and over that period with one minor cooling period in the early 19th century the surrounding planets warmed along with the increased output of the sun. Now the sun is in the most complete and serious solar minimum ever documented and real scientists are carefully observing the sun and estimating the effects on the planets of this extended solar minimum.

Right now the majority opinion is that we can at the minimum expect an equivalent to the Dalton minimum of the early 1800s, A smaller but still noticeable group say the extreme low activity of the sun even in a minimum indicates a more serious Maunder type minimum like the one from 1640 through 1720 or so that was the coldest part of the 400 year long little ice age that had 4 such serious solar minimums. The third group consisting of mostly team leaders and experienced scientists feels that based on the number of years our current climate optimum has lasted of about 13.000 years feel because that is the average length of the last 5 climate optimums that we are possibly heading into a full 80,000 year full ice age. It will be from 30 to 100 years before we will know for sure about any of this one can only wish we had all those satellite power stations and farms that Jimmy Carter scrapped as unneeded while he was president.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

It's just a collection of all the long-debunked denier myths which never seem to die. He starts off with an oldie but a goodie.

"The Romans grew grapes at approximately 100 A.D. and the Normans did in 1100.[3] It is now becoming possible to grow grapes once again in England."

Not only is this an irrelevant argument (grapes today are not the same as grapes 2,000 years ago), it's not even true. There are vineyards in England today.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...

The rest of the arguments aren't any better - all are easily disproven with a 30 second Google search. Or obvious cherrypicks, like looking at Sargasso Sea temperatures (0.7% of the Earth's surface area) instead of global temperatures.

Just the usual tripe which illustrates why we call them deniers.

The Earth has experienced warmer climates in the past that cannot be attributed to man made activity.

The Earth has also experienced cooler temperatures even during times of increased output of man made carbon dioxide.

Global Warming Alarmists say that 100 years out of 4.5 billion years determines a trend but 10 years out of 100 does not.

It's not science, it's politics.

It was bad for Galileo, it is bad for any society that lets a governing body decide what is good science and what is bad science. They will choose the facts that support their agenda. If you prefer to live in that world, then you would still think the Earth is flat.

Here's a better argument. Hacker have just exposed 100's of emails and documents that skew and suppress evidence against AGW, in order to follow a government agenda. Being caught red handed trying to dupe and trick the public has completely decimated any credibility of the AGW argument.

You are correct. It is unscientific garbage cited by uneducated people.