Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

First off, I admire the amount of organization you have done, it was very good and makes my job a lota easier :)Second lemme just say one thing: I'm not going to attack sources b/c you and I probably have a different definition of what a "reliable source" is, and so do people on opposite sides of this issue.Contention 1 refutation:I.iYou have not shown the potential amount of temperature that can be decreased by cosmic rays. The effects of these cosmic rays rely on the sun being less active now than it ever was in the Earth's history. However, that is not true. However, that is simply not true, the sun is MORE active than it ever has been over the past 8,000 years. [2].I.ii"[The paper [you are refering to]] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but itâ€™s a very important first step... While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change. [1]"Simply put, although your evidence allows the possibility of cosmic rays to cause the warming of the Earth (although you omit saying by how much and if it would match the trends we are seeing) it does not in any way prove or even attempt to prove that this is something that is happening at this very moment. Sure, even if once every 135 million years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy (which is a very odd statement considering the entire galaxy rotates at roughly the same speed and direction) you have not shown how this is something that is happening at this very moment.I.i.cI really only have one thing to say about this sub-sub point. You have not given specific numbers indicating how this increase in solar radiation hitting the earth would decrease. The warming I have indicated occured over the past 100 years, and really picked up around 1950 and continued to increase after 1990. So your study inadequately explains the global warming we have seen on the time scale and does not give specific numbers, i.e. it does not specify how much it is theorized to increase the earth's temperature by.I.ii"[S]cientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.[3]"In other words, you have successfully proven corrloation, but not causation. Pardon me, but just because some Russian scientist believes that this correlation is cause to blame the sun for global warming, that doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.II.i I refer you to my second contention source 4. The Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC found that if we eliminate CO2 output by humans from the equation, we cannot accurately dexcribe the temperatures we are seeing now. II.iiAlthough the medievel period was warmer in some parts of the world, it definitely was not a global event, or at least there is no evidence to support the idea that it was."There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years [5]."For reference: http://www.ipcc.ch...1) http://thinkprogress.org...2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...3) http://www.livescience.com...4) http://www.giss.nasa.gov...; http://grist.org...