In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Before anyone that is of the opinion that global warming is caused by carbon emissions says anything, let me say upfront here and now- this both proves and disproves nothing at all. It merely means that there is another explanation that needs to be explored and studied, before claiming certain kinds of knowledges.
Good science should never establish something as a fact, without offering other possible explanations (if there were any). Would they?
Good science does not work backwards in its research. Does it?
So, how will this data be received by those that have built and are building their careers around the more popular and widely accepted hypothesis?
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
No surprise there. I will not be surprised to hear that this man has been thoroughly ostracized by the beginning of the week, all for daring to question a generally established "fact" that has yet to be proven.
So unfortunately, there is a large group of scientists that have overemphasized (and may even have purposely over-exaggerated) man's contribution to this phenomenon. By putting their eggs all into one basket, many that hear their sales pitches have come to accept this idea as gospel; and they have done it without considering other possibilities, to include Abdussamatov's explanation.
More than anything, one has to ask some questions here.
Have we become so terribly egocentric that we believe man is important enough to claim responsibility for this, and other things that he bears no responsibility for? Or better yet, have we overestimated our own relevance?
At any rate, I think that I can be sure about one thing in all of this. One certainly should be concerned when a politician buys into, packages, and markets a theory, while a group of scientists falls into lock-step behind him/her. It should be the other way around.