Dr. Jaworowski makes the claim that adjusting upper layers of glacial ice for infusions of modern gasses is an ad hoc correction without physical explanation, but it is not. All solid crystals infuse and exhume gasses within their environment. There are known equilibrium values for such under multi-variable conditions. It requires time, pressure and some distance from the surface for ice crystals to lock-in, relatively speaking, a portion of ancient air.

It may very well be that Jaworowski, being by profession a radiologist, is simply accustomed to seeing raw data from controlled laboratory experiments that jibe well with theoretical models or other related experimental data streams, and hasn’t the experience of earth scientists, where field data is often jumbled by a multiplicity of causes, effects and their intrinsic variables. Analysing field data is seldom a straightforward linear process, but usually an intricate puzzle that needs considerable disentanglement and a multi-disciplinary approach to get at the facts.

What on the surface may be a conclusive seeming falsification, may often, after deeper analysis, be a quite reasonable and necessary qualification.

Whatever number of various scientists, Ph.D’s, et al., who are skeptical of AGW, there is a very small and shrinking number of climatologists who are so. If one were to map the positions of those stalwarts over time, one would find that they have, in the aggregate, moved closer to at least some recognition of the reality of AGW, and their arguments have, mainly, shifted from confronting the theoretical ground, en toto, to questioning particular elements that are extrapolated from theory. That is a good thing. Science requires solid rational skepticism, but not at the expense of reason. Too often skepicism is an intellectual pose that conceals a cynical heart.

Natural cycles do not contradict AGW. It is trivial that the climate is naturally variable over extensive periods of time. AGW does not obviate natural variation, it adjusts upward the heat equilibrium point which is an add-on to natural variability. It is not in any way a question of either/or. What those who argue that 20th century global warming is natural most generally fail to do is offer an observed physical mechanism that sufficiently explains it. Solar variation and/or cosmic rays, while they may have some influence on natural climate variability, have not been observed to have increased or decreased to any degree that correlates with or compensates for present temperature change. May they have some greater influence than what is known so far? Maybe, but it is a hard argument to make.

There is only a tiny fraction of credibility in arguing that there might be some unknown cause or mechanism that obviates or minimalizes the greenhouse effect, albedo and land use changes that are observable and quantifiable and do well explain the change we see. Of course our knowledge is incomplete and mutable, but to negate what is known simply on that basis is mere hand-waving. It is denialism. It’s not ‘I don’t believe it because a compelling case has not been made’, but, ‘I won’t believe it because it threatens my economical, political, philosophical or religious world-view’, even if the former statement is presented as a rationale. It is only human to cling to long held cognitive, perceptual and cultural biases. It is hard work to overcome them. It is scary because we invest them with our sense of self, meaning, purpose and security.

Contrary-wise the mechanisms of AGW have been known, studied and well debated for

Second, the world will not change in 10 years. But we will have built another generation of polluting power plants and the like and set in motion changes that will be all but impossible to undo. That is, we are not 10 years away from the actual tipping point, but we are 10 years away from being virtually powerless to stop from crossing the tipping point sometime around mid-century (tipping point being most clearly defined as the point after which we cannot stop the Greenland ice sheet from ultimately disintegrating).

Do realize how many scientists, climatologist, PHD’s etc have spoken against man made global warming? From what I have seen, thousands. Yet when these Scientists (some even working for the IPCC) “perform their roles” they are marginalized and shunned from the scientific community. If one were to really care about the science of climate change one would seek out their reports and opinions. As far as I have seen their are no primitive superstitions or dangers in their work.

Here is the work of one scientist who was involved in 17 glacier expeditions. In Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. His findings showed that the IPCC was inaccurate in their research and findings. See here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Being the supposed non-thinking denier that I am ushering in the “anti-enlightenment malaise” I just want you to know that I am the author of the book “Swimming with Gandhi and Einstein” http://www.swimmingwith.com (yes a shameless plug) It is a reflection and study of human consciousness related to elements of psychology, sociology and spirituality. It brings people the the idea that we are all one. You, me and all of nature. My book is about enlightenment.

My point in telling you this is not to brag (okay, maybe only partly) I just want you to see that the characterizations you use, against those who see things differently than you, do not always fit.

My concerns are not with the scientist involved in GW. My concerns are with the politicians and bureaucrats that (in the IPCC) are taking the lead in this issue and at times seem to be cherry-picking findings to support their dire predictions. As I stated above some scientist have shown that the IPCC has been at the very least irresponsible.

I’m sure that as a Canadian yourself you can understand my reservation about politicians and bureaucrats.

Take care

Good analogy but it has it’s flaws. First and foremost, plumbers and plumbing have been around about 2000 years longer than “Climate Science.” Secondarily, and I quote; “To second guess people of learning is very foolish when so much is at stake.” I just want to point out that at one time respected scientists of their day believed that the earth revolved around the sun. Now I know what you’re going to say, “But we have learned so much more since then.” This is true, but I want to point out that in the 1970’s respected scientists reported that an Ice age was imminent.

Climate Science relies heavily on computer modeling as does weather prediction. If you follow the weather predictions, how often do they get it right? My point is if the scientists can’t predict the weather for your little corner of the world with 100% accuracy using the computer models, what make you think that they can get climate change for the entire planet correct? Furthermore, scientists will tell you that they don’t understand what causes drought, the “El Nino” effect, or if milk is good or bad for you for that mater. Had we given the blind trust to science in the 1970s we would all be living at the equator. And by the way, what makes you think that the human nature of scientist is any different than let’s say politicians? (Sorry to all you science types out there. It’s just an example. )

I’m not doubting climate change, it’s happened many times before and will, hopefully, continue for many years to come. The earth is a living breathing entity constantly in flux, as such is not now or ever has been in a state of stasis. Based on these facts I do not believe we should all become like Chicken Little and run around saying “The sky is falling!!!”

As for the premise that because of “Global Warming Record Droughts” is the cause of some people missing their fireworks, that’s just a load of BS. Check the historic record and you will find that the drought’s at present are NOT historic by any means.

The link below to the New York Academy of Sciences will bear that out.

http://www.nyas.org/ ebrief/ miniEB.asp?ebriefID=495

Science gets its credibility from its ability to make predictions that come true. Scientists before 1960 reasoned that since CO2 traps heat and was being released by human activity, there must be an eventual change to climate. Those predictions are now gradually proving themselves true.
The Deniers in contrast, haven’t been able to predict anything. They first said GW didn’t exist, and now they said it might be true but isn’t man made. And their arguments include claims that Pluto is warming too, and that the Sun has only recently dramatically changed its output etc. Why try to use such complicated and silly reasoning when a real explanation is so simple and obvious?: we’re changing the atmosphere.
Its also vital to place the Deniers into their appropriate cultural context since they present such a danger to our society. Our society is backsliding into an earlier more primitive superstitious form. It is the duty of all thinking people to try to hold the line against this anti-enlightenment malaise.
Just like we need to trust our plumbers to sort our leaking water pipes, we must also trust our scientists when they perform their roles. To second guess people of learning is very foolish when so much is at stake. So while the Deniers dance around the fire pit, lets hope that the Rationalists continue to lead our society forward.

Kind Regards, Tom King

Like anything it’s all in trends. Yes, there are ups and downs and variations but overall the earth is warming. Match that trend with global warming gas emissions and you have a probable correlation. It’s basic science but we humans would rather attribute it to any cause but our own. Deny all you want, your children and humanity will bare the most severe effects of our behavior. If you can sleep on that then you have no conscience or some reallly good prescriptions.

What’s going to happen in ten years? Is it going to be hotter? Colder? Wetter? Can you really know when regional weather is rarely predicted accurately? Will the fact that it’s warmer ten years from now prove that its all because of man made climate change? Shouldn’t you be sure now? I guess I should take it on faith because it seems that even Al Gore is not so sure:

George Stephanopoulos suggested to Mr. Gore that the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are not as extreme as proposed in his movie, Mr. Gore said that the scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists “don’t know. . . . They just don’t know.”