: I'm not at all sure this is the correct way to handle this. That effects other than CO2 are included is just bog-std. Attribution of recent climate change for example. Because Plimer's book is worthless non-science (I'm unclear whether you accept that, or argue that you're not obliged to have a position one way or another, or disagree and assert that it is valuable) it isn't going to get replied to in scientifc venues, only in blogs. Plimer is wrong to claim that 'the IPCC has essentially ignored the role of natural climate variability', as natural climate variability is carefully considered in all four of the IPCC's comprehensive assessments since 1990. In its 2007 report, a whole chapter on palaeoclimate focuses on natural climate variations over Earth's history might be what you want, from  (found via ).  also applies if you want any more ripping-to-shreds of Plimer