Unfortuantely, the understanding of "science and scientists" is about as lacking here as elsewhere. The common citing of "a scientist said" is meaningless, or nearly so, if the subject lies outside the specific expertise of the specific scientist making the statement.

All are entitled to state their opinions; but competent people must consider how likely those opinions are to reflect the opinions of others best qualified in the field under discussion

While CERN's "Nuclear Scientists" do have an interest in sunspots (and one might suspect a vested interest?) being a CERN scientist does NOT ALONE qualify them to make sweeping statements about "Atmospheric Science" since Atmospheric Sciences are not within the province of the agency. An individual scientist might have expertise, but the credentials of the organization don't validate the opinionator. Each branch of science usually is a very specialised field, and believability for mere mortals must be based on the peer opinions of those in the same field.

Complaints that one must believe what "a PHD" says apply only at MacDonalds when one tells you whether the fries are fresh. Even then, the "PHD" may have ulterior motives and may "stretch the meanings" but there's nothing much you can do about it.

The several misstatements in the first post's extract about the "immense qualifications of CERN" are a cause for concern, specifically for example the statement that "CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web" which is FACTUALLY FALSE within any meaning of "invented." CERN made substantial contributions to implementing what was invented by others, and appropriate credit is deserved, but INVENT IT DID NOT.

Puffery and fakery are terms that come to mind.

No competent Atmospheric Scientist with legitimate standing among others within the specialty - that I've heard from - has denied that "sunspots" and multiple other influences have immense effect on the current cycle of apparent warming. Similarly, none have represented their models as being infallible or being the "last word." Science is a matter of continual improvement of the best and most likely, and is NOT A STATIC ENTITY.

It makes little difference what is the largest influence on warming that is going on now. The best studies have shown that man-made influences, regardless of their current effect, are producing an unstable effect that could easily run "out of control" and without prompt action may already be past recovery. I've read all of the G8 report, and have followed subsequent peer (and other) reviews; and I suspect no others here have(?).

A consistently persistent group of "scientists" (my term is SPGWKs) have repeatedly produced the same "31,000 signatures" on "petitions" with various claims that all other (real) scientists are wrong. While I've checked out the who and the why, and the vested interests of a sufficiently representative sample for my purposes, of the signatories on several prior petitions, I choose not to be bothered at this time with this purportedly "new one." (Given the proclivity for exaggerated claims, it's probably the ten year old one recycled once again.)

Even if the "conclusions" in this latest report may be eventually evaluated as being pertinent, NO ONE HEADLINE is the news. All the blustering about whose dick is the biggest (or who's the biggest dick) will not change the steady pace of legitimate science - which unfortunately will remain impenetrable for most of the people who chose to ignore fifth grade math & science.

John