Thinking outside the box on climate change

Could both the UN and the man with a lock box and a chip on his shoulder the size of the Arctic Shelf be wrong about climate change?

Herewith a fascinating alternative explanation I discovered via the always-interesting Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit.

From the UK's Times Online:

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Read the whole article.

Rather than marching lockstep with the popular consensus, this is how real science should work. Let the debate begin!