I just read Habibullo Abdussamatov's paper and while I'm not currently in a position to respond to it in it's entirety, I did have one thought I will mention. Abdussamatov argues that, "Natural causes play the most important role in climate variations rather than human activity since natural factors are substantially more powerful. Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations of temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during the glacial/interglacial cycles of at least the past 800-thousand years. Analysis of ice cores shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the rise temperatures very closely and lagged warmings by 800±400 years. During the glacial/interglacial cycles the peaks of carbon dioxide concentration have never preceded the warmings. Therefore there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a major factor in the warming of the Earth now. Considerable changes of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide always determined by corresponding temperature fluctuations of the World Ocean."
Abdussamatov seems to be arguing too much at once. His article goes to great lengths to align reduced TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) levels with periods of glaciation holding up specific astronomical data a means of mapping certain climate changes. He then veers off course offering arguments against another completely different sort of data, namely that concerning CO2 concentrations in ice core samples. These secondary arguments are largely unsupported and have little or no bearing on his original topic, TSI levels and their relationship to climate change.
As I read Abdussamatov's paper, it occurred to me that, if there were a group of global players who had a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, Russia would be one of them. Further, efforts by them toward propping up any and all arguments against the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and climate change would not be novel.
