Yes it is, some people will tell you otherwise, chances are theyre not qualified to speak on the subject. Those who have studied it will tell you that it is a big deal. Pretty much everyone on the planet. Earth preventing it escaping into space. Even a small increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases contributes to global warming. Antarctic Ice Caps, the retreating glaciers in every mountain range, the melting permafrost, the earlier arrival of migratory species, the loss of low lying islands, the expanding deserts etc etc. The situation will get infinitely worse. Each year 150,000 people die from the effects of global warming, a further 10 million are infected because diseases have spread; these figures are set to double each 25 years. More and more land will be lost due to droughts, expanding deserts, rising sea levels etc. Its estimated that if nothing is done then by 2100 as many as 2 billion people will be forced to migrate. The blame for this lies squarely at the door of the politicians. For decades scientists were warning about the effects of global warming but it didnt suit the politicians to act. It was established as scientific fact in 1896 but at that time it wasnt a serious threat because greenhouse gas emissions were much less than they are now. Serious concerns were raised by scientists from about 1950 onwards. In 1988 it made it onto the political agenda, the UK government was instrumental in convening the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

This was attended by 172 countries and brought global warming to the attention of the world. As individuals we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by conserving energy, recycling, reusing and reducing our demand for goods and services. This will only slow down global warming. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.

CO2 concentration is not a key determinant of periodic variation of the global temperature. Arcticwide SAT with TSI and with atmospheric CO2. Arctic SATs are consistent with similar wavelet structures derived for the TSI forcing. Id toss it in for fun.

Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Lockwood paper, and I have some trouble with Figure 4. It shows T increasing for the last 100 years. It also shows 10Be decreasing for the last 100 years. This tells me that temperatures should have been increasing over the last 100 years. It appears that some want to attribute all climate change to CO2, others to only the sun, others to other factors.

FWIW, I do not believe that these mechanisms are mutually exclusive of each other and that their interplay is very complex and difficult to model. EDIT 1; Sorry, my efforts have not pleased you Trevor. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. That sounds like someone stepping it up and calling the Sun out as the source of warming. But that probably does not make it the golden answer that Bob requested in this question. You are right, they do not explicity state the Sun.