>Thank you for sending me the interesting report above.
>I want to make the following points:
>
>1) The past controversy of whether the world is warming or not is
>practically over. There is now no serious scientist who is claiming the
>world is not warming.
> I haven't heard about these indications of cooling, but perhaps
>they will become known later.
>
>2) There is still controversy about the human contribution to the
>warming. Recently Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew university also suggested
>that warming is connected to the Solar cycle.
> The idea is familiar, and I think is partially true. However, the
>sources I read claimed that the good agreement with the Solar cycle exists
>only up to the 1970s, and even then only about 80% of the warming
>can be explained by the Solar Cycle.
> There are opposing claims, that aerosols have been masking most of
>the effect during the past century, and the warming will accelerate during
>the next few years!
>
>3) Some of the claims in the article are strange. For example a
>prediction of the strength of future Solar cycles. I am not aware of any
>method of such a prediction, and I'm quite sure I would have heard of it.
> Another problem is finding a cycle of 52 years in a record of 118
>years, though it is possible in principle.
> The Co2 science site itself sounds familiar. Are you sure it isn't
>an organ of the oil industry, with its obvious bias?
>
>Of-course, the article does make predictions. If they come true in the
>next few years, we can all relax.
>However, what if they aren't true and the world continues to warm?
>Governments should, in my opinion, get ready for this possibility and
>all the outcomes.
>
>I'll send you some links later, but for now the latest is
>http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climat...
>
>and our list of links
>http://nasa.proj.ac.il/newsclip.html
>
>Regards
>
>Amnon