The article summarized the conclusions of a paper published in Nature. However the rougetard has no rebuttal so he resorts to ad hominem bullcrap. The article referred to the global warming that occurred over the past 100 years and how solar irradiance changes could not possibly account for the entire magnitude of warming observed.<quoted text>
Did you notice that article was written in 2006, the year before they changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Why did they change the name???
Did you know that Dr. David Hathaway prior to 2007 thought Solar Cycle #24 would be another hot cycle and the very next year changed his solar forecast and it has been running true as #24 is the coldest solar cycle in about one hundred years?
As so, just who is UCAR? Ah, our loony-lefties from the University of Colorado?!?
BTW, Hathaway's predictions about solar cycles have absolutely nothing to do with the findings that solar irradiance cannot account for the magnitude of warming. The rougetard is out in left field again and as dishonest as usual.
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
But certain moronic deniers are convinced that scientists are unaware of solar irradiance.