More on Global Warming

I asked global warming (GW) skeptic Jarrett Buys to explain the melting of the glaciers as evidenced by photos taken over the last century and the data behind ubiquitous graphs like this one. Excerpts from his response include:

Man just isn’t that causative!

Of course there is more melting of glaciers globally; we are at the end of the interglacial period, which always shows the most amount of glacial melt – it’s been melting for 10 thousand years! Also, the pattern shows we always have a slight warm spike at the end of the cycle, just before we plummet into the next glacial period, which might just account for the 1/2 degree f. Increase since 1988.

I can’t comment on this graph. I would imagine this is part of the ipcc’s climate modeling system based on their computer models that “prove” them right.

I realize critics of “the other side” (such as you mention in your blog) already have a “pat” answer for the explanations of such data being provided; however, that does not automatically mean the data is false, it just means that your side has a predetermined answer for all data that does not agree with your theory.

Thanks for this, Jarrett.

You bring up good points about the motive for junk science: both sides have something to gain by convincing lawmakers of the correctness of their positions. But personally, I find this irrelevant because, from my perspective, evaluating the correctness of the anthropogenic GW theory is impossible due to the enormous scale of time and the number of variables. I grant that it really IS possible that there actually isn’t a problem, or, if there is, that mankind has identically zero cause in it.

However, while I can’t prove the theory one way or the other, I think any fairminded individual would have to concede that it’s quite possibly true — due to the preponderance of top thinkers whose collective research reaches this identical conclusion. Btw, unlike you, I attribute to man more than enough cause to ruin this planet — in any of a dozen different ways. I guess my position is that there is a reasonable probability associated with anthropogenic GW, and that this alone is enough to militate action — especially when we need to get rid of fossil fuels for 3 – 4 other reasons that have nothing to do with GW at all.