Actually, that's a pretty weird little site.  And the guy who writes it, Nasif Nahle, seems to be a denizen of a number of contrarian and fringe science web boards.  It seems to be one person's vanity site devoted to his own unique brand of "science."

Apologies accepted.

You wrote: "It seems to be one person's vanity site devoted to his own unique brand of "science".", you have placed the word science within quotation marks, which would make the reader think that the science contained in BC website is not real science. I would like to elucidate, supported on scientific literature, any question you could possibly have from the content of the articles published there.

BTW. I don't troll when the dialogue is educated and honest.

You say:

"Mr. Nahle, unless I've missed something, on your site you deny the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is at this point very well accepted among credible researchers."

My answer: First of all, anthropogenic global warming is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Secondly, the credibility of a researcher does not mean he/she is right.

You say:

"You do so on the basis of a well-discredited notion that the Earth is heating up because the whole solar system is heating up."

My answer: No, I don't do so on the basis of discredited notions, but on observations of real nature; for example:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast14jul_2m.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..589V

You say:

"Discover online's astronomy blogger, Phil Plait, offered in 2007 a good, plain language explanation of why this solar system heating idea doesn't hold up on its own merits, as well as in relation to the current global warming on Earth."

As you can verify, real nature says the oposite:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/03dec_magneticcracks.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm

You say:

"And from May 2009, here's coverage on Science Daily of the latest research demonstrating that changes in the sun are not causing global warming, done by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Dalhousie University."

Global warming has stopped about ten years ago. The recent cooling of Earth coincides with a deep and prolongued period of low solar activity.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

From the article you quoted:

"...have developed a model to test a controversial hypothesis that says changes in the sun are causing global warming."

Well, no scientist in his/her five senses would prefer a model better than the real nature.

You say:

"In my honest and educated assessment, your site fails to represent accurate or real science as far as climate change is concerned. That is all I intend to get across to readers of this blog."

Your last paragraph is addressed to all scientists who have made observations and experimentation of real nature. Unfortunately for this kind of argumentations, all my articles and papers are strongly supported by academic assessments, investigations, etc. For example:

Broecker, Wallace S. Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Science. 23 February 2001. Vol. 291. No. 5508, pp. 1497 – 1499.

Bond, Gerard et al. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 – 2136.

Jablonski, David; Erwin, Douglas H.; Lipps, Jere H. Evolutionary Paleobiology. 1996. The University of Chicago; Chicago, Illinois.

Keenlyside, N. S., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J., Kornblueh, L. and Roeckner, E. Advancing Decadal-Scale Climate Prediction in the North Atlantic Sector. Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected on 8 May 2008.

R. Kozdon, A. Eisenhauer, M. Sarnthein, M. Weinelt, D. Hippler, C. Millo, J. Simstich. Calcium Isotope Fractionation as a new and Sensitive Proxy for the Reconstruction of Sea Surface Temperatures in High Northern Latitudes. 2004. Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 6, 03641.

Lean, J. 2004. Solar Irradiance Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2004-035. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

What I am doing is just to teach real science.

On the other hand, you have not told me what is wrong in the scientific content of the articles. The databases of TSI are correct, so the databases of change of temperature and the comparisons. The calculations of amplitude of TSI is correct, etc. Would you be so kind as to be a bit more specific?

Sorry Brooks, but HER conclusions don't agree with HER data.

Given that the data coincides with most of databases on TSI, HER conclusions are biased.

Carbon dioxide has not the thermophysical properties as to cause any global warming or climate change.

Please, read any book on heat transfer or thermodynamics and you'll find that the carbon dioxide at its current Pp has an emissivity of 0.001.

On the other hand, Methane is a better conveyor of heat, but it doesn't store heat for prolongued periods.

The concentration of N2O in the atmosphere is insignificant and cannot be taken into account for the last decade warming which was no more than 0.52 °C.

Wow, first you use her data to make your case even though her conclusions about her own data are totally the opposite of yours.  In fact claiming her conclusions are biased without anything to back up that claim.  (Since you haven't pointed to the data, or how she has come to a biased conclusion.)

Now you claim that carbon dioxide doesn't have the properties to cause any global warming?  This is so far outside the realm of believable that it is difficult to see how you could come to such a conclusion, I have seen no scientist or paper anywhere make the claim that CO2 doesn't have the properties to cause any global warming.  Or for N2O for that matter. 

Nasif, what are you still doing here?  You said you were going to take your toys and go home.

How can we trust you when you aren't a man of your word?

Dear Patrick... I wrote: "I'm sorry if good science motivates you to insult my person, so I have decided not continuing posting here, unless you ask me for any explanation about real science. As you continue having doubts and questioning good science, I continue being here, trying to expose fallacies about climate and science. But it seems my efforts have been useless.

What you profess is a religion or something which is highly dogmatic, antiscientific, pseudoscientific and, unfortunately, irrational because gives no chance to real science, but to solipsism. Science illiteracy is the main cause of hostile reactions from AGWers against real scientists.

When a scientist shows the truth behind climate change, the reaction from AGWers is vitriolic, irrational... Like yours, to be clear. BTW, here another paper which will open your readers' eyes:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Hasta la vista,

Nasif Nahle

What's interesting here is that there's been a remarkable lack of vitriol in response to Nasif's posts.  People have read his arguments, followed some of his links, and come back to point out inconsistencies and mis-interpretations of data and conclusions.

Nasif responds to these observations, again and again, by saying, effectively, "You're wrong.  These leading climate specialists are wrong."

Nasif's mind is made up.  But he flips this back around and accuses the people responding to him of being the closed-minded ones.

There's one notable difference this time around: Nasif links to published research that actually reflects his dismissal of the human causes of global warming.  

One of the authors, Dr. Carl de Freitas, is pretty well regarded as a scientist in New Zealand, from what I can tell.  

It also has to be said that once one follows this science for a length of time, his name is one of the few relatively credible ones (I'd say a dozen or less) that pops up all the time, disputing the theory of AGW; while there are dozens that come up just as often supporting it.

Not to dismiss his work outright, then; just to say he's in an extreme minority.

On the bright side, it's good to have some informed arguments going on within the climatology field.  That's part of how science becomes refined.  

More cynically, this sort of thing is kind of the science world's equivalent of office politics. A researcher who could come up with a bombproof argument disproving the theory of AGW would be a celebrity!  So why not give it a good shot?

Yes but the article does not conclude that solar activity is the cause of global warming.  Only in solar activities effect on El Nino, La Nina.  Since it does not dispute the currently accepted, peer reviewed research, that global warming is mostly being caused by human addition of GHG to the atmosphere nor does it claim that solar activity accounts for the current increases in world temperatures I don't see its relevance here. 

Dear Brooks, El Niño and La Niña are the drivers of Earth's climate. The peak in global temperature in 1998 was due to an unusual El Niño event:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html

Those are the little things the AGWers don't tell you because those little things are good science. From the article at

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarcycle.jsp

we conclude that El Niño and La Niña, the drivers of global climate are influenced by the solar radiation:

On the other hand, what I say about the negligible thermophysical properties of carbon dioxide is supported by experimentation and observation of many scientists. Again, I reccommend you to read books and scientific magazines, so you can see the reality on this issue. Good science doesn't support the idea of an anthropogenic global warming.

BTW, there is not global warming nowadays. Instead, the Earth is cooling.

All the best,

Nasif Nahle

I suggest the next readings:

Mazzarella A. (2008) Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation and Climate. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, 181-184.

Charvatova I. and J. Strestik. (2004). Periodicities between 6 and 16 years in surface air temperature in possible relation to solar inertial motion. J. of Atm. and Solar-Terr. Phys. 66, 219-227.

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/gsfc3.html

Nicola Scafetta and Richard Willson. ACRIM-gap and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model. Geophysical Research Letter (2009).

Nasif, why are you posting articles that do not support your claims?  Neither of your El Nino articles claim that El Nino and La Nina are 'the drivers' of Earth's climate.  And neither claim that the 1998 high temperature came from El Nino either.  And neither claim that the sun through El Nino/La Nina are responsible for the current rise in temperatures.  It is obvious that you have no backing in these areas and refuse to give evidence for these claims, it makes the rest of your arguments far more questionable when you are already shown to willing produce information that does not support what you say it supports. 

"Those are the little things the AGWers don't tell you because those little things are good science." 

Now you are the one the using Ad hominem attacks by claiming that 'AGWers don't tell you because those little things are good science'.  You have attacked your opponents argument by attacking the person behind it, if you have evidence for these claims, provide them. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and quite obviously a troll.

Two more claims made, again, about CO2 as a global warming gas and that the Earth is cooling, two more claims made without a shred of evidence. 

Dear Emily...

Ad hominem argumentation and logical phallacies are your specialties, it seems.

At least you have taken a course of physics during your High School... If not, please read the references, books, articles, etc., and tell me what it is "junk" from all the material I have posted here; define what is wrong and why from a scientific viewpoint. Thank you.

Nasif Nahle

Nasif, you are the one claiming that the currently accepted theory, by the peer reviewed science and the scientists who study climate are wrong.  It is on you to prove the theory wrong.

If you feel Radiative forcing is wrong and only emmissivity is right then you need to prove both.  If you say that Total Solar Irradiance matches exactly to all temperature changes on Earth and accounts for all of it, you need to prove it.  If you say carbon dioxide and N2O have no effect at all on the global warming you need to prove it.  Because right now the science and scientists disagree with you.

Nasif, you flat out reject analysis by very well-regarded, peer-reviewed scientists like Gavin Schmidt (of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and Judith Lean (of the US Naval Research Laboratory).

There's little scientific basis or logical reasoning behind your arguments, as I and others have pointed out.  

And all the same, your adherence to them is absolute.

So, examining the structure of your belief system actually becomes relevant to the discussion, rather than an ad hominem argument.  

That's probably uncomfortable. You'd prefer that I take you on tit for tat on the science, because there's always one more formula that you can post, one more abuse of meaning, another laundry list of research citations that you either don't know how to interpret, or cherry-pick for the parts that fit your world view.  

Dear Brooks... I did it; I mean, I have proven by scientific methodology that the idea, not the theory because it is not a theory, of AGW is wrong.

I have shown the methods and algorithms and you have not demonstrated what is wrong with them. You are only saying that someone says the contrary, but without scientific basis.

This is not the way the science works. If you find that any of the assertions is wrong, specify which one is wrong and why. I have made many investigations on the issue and found the correlation that Lean and Schmidt, by obscure objectives, denny when their databases on real phenomena are clearly demonstrating the correlation.

The paper of Gavin Schmidt has been falsified entirely by solar physicists. Schmidt's paper does not rely on science, but on ideology.

Regarding peer reviewed papers, another deceiptive argument from AGWers, I have given you many peer reviewed references which demonstrates the correlation between the TSI and the global climate. It is Schmidt alone against hundreds of solar physicists.

The formulas Emily is referring to are well explained in my articles and the procedures are well known among scientists. My paper on Heat Stored is a peer reviewed paper.

I'm sorry for you don't understand good science.

Dear Emily... Your arguments are nonsense. Please, demonstrate where and how my algorithms and assessments are wrong. Let the person living in peace.

Nasif, I can't see any reason to discuss science further with someone who disputes that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas. 

Dear Emily... Again, you are trying to disprove good science through denigrating the person. You are not discussing science.

It's not me who is quarreling over the AGWist flawed thermal properties of carbon dioxide, it is the science itself and honest scientists. The properties of many materials, carbon dioxide among them, have been obtained by observation and experimentation by many physicists through time.

I recommend you to read scientific books on heat transfer, thermodynamics, etc. There you will find real data on the thermophysical properties of carbon dioxide.

It's not me who states it, but nature itself; I support my work on scientific research made by hundreds of scientists, like Hottel, Van Ness, Peixoto, and Modest, for example.

If you have the time, take any book of Heat Transfer Science and answer the next questions:

1. What the climate sensitivity of CO2 is?

2. What is the absorptivity-emissivity of carbon dioxide?

3. Which the Pp of carbon dioxide is?

4. What is the total emittancy of carbon dioxide?

5. What is the heat capacity of carbon dioxide?

6. What is the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide?

AGW is not science, but politics.

BTW, I am an environmentalist, member of many environmentalist societies; I adhere to science and the theory of truth, nonetheless.

All the best,

Nasif Nahle