Check out this article– it talks about how the leading alternate theory is that the Earth’s temperature is more controlled by the Sun than by human CO2 emissions.

I have now looked thoroughly at Calder’s article you reference, and included two new posts on the subject on my own blog. In summary, the actual science Calder references does not support his thesis.

1. Yes, Svensmark’s paper demonstrates a correlation between cosmic rays and the formation of rain clouds, and a mechanism by which this happens.

2. No, warming of the earth has not stopped since 1999. The trend is still quite clearly upwards (despite an outlyer in the data in 1998).

3. The warming does not correlate with a reduction in cosmic rays – the 10 year mean for which has been static since records began in 1953.

Therefore solar forcing is not a major factor in the current warming trend (although the IPCC specifically speaks to the extent to which it *is* a factor).

I have made some graphs of points 2 and 3, available on my site, with references to the source data.

Regards,
Stephen

Now if we posit the great flood at about this time, there is no reason to suppose that these people died in the flood. They might have died just before or just after the flood.

So a single piece of evidence is not a proof – interesting as it may be. Likewise, nothing I have said does *not* inidicate they died in a flood.

Greenland is indeed quite green on its southern and western fjords even now. Look at Nuuk (the capital city, with a population of some 14,000 people) on google earth, and you will see green valleys straddling icy fjords and snowcapped mountains. The picture, of course, was taken in summer.

However, the vikings did settle Greenland and lived there happily for about 400 years in the medieval warm period before they disappeared. We don’t know why they disappeared. Three theories are (1) Plague, (2) raiders taking them into slavery and (3) famine caused by the onset of the little ice age that followed the medieval warm period (this third explanation does not fully fit the dates, but it is perhaps close enough).

As I indicated above, the climate change in the North Atlantic in the medieval warm period was not experienced worldwide, as indicated by the latest climate research.

The world has been warmer than it is now – again that is uncontroversial. But the problem is the speed of change. When the world is warm the sea level rises (both through release of water trapped in ice and thermal expansion). Land is lost, deserts expand, storm cycles become stronger etc.

This is only dangerous if it happens so quickly that we cannot adapt to the change. Species are only lost if they cannot migrate or gradually adapt to new conditions.

Aditionally though, climate change is not just about heating. Whilst the total energy budget leads to a global warming, in different regions this leads to climate change that may not involve warming. For instance, the North Atlantic drift has cooled 30% in a couple of decades, and we may well be heading for another European little ice age event. Elsewhere temperatures may be rtoughly the same, but higher atmospheric energy will lead to more severe storms. The seas are becoming less alkaline as they absorb more carbon dioxide, and this could be fatal to coral for instance.

Some newspapers have spun the story too far towards the catastrophic, but the damaging effects of global warming are truly alarming, and could lead to strife and geopolitical risk.

I think we have an important lesson from eschatology: Jesus is coming back, but no one knows the hour or the day. There is no reason to believe that He will return just in time to save us from our folly if we destroy our ecosystem. Moreover, if we destroy that ecosystem when we could have avoided doing so, and if the damage we do causes death and suffering – we are responsible for that death and suffering. That is a poor Christian witness – particularly as we are stewards of this creation. If we hand back a vineyard that is parched and despoiled, what kind of stewards are we?

Your final point: is climate change man made? The official statistic is that the probability it is so is at least 90%. I wouldn’t bet against such odds (particularly as the experimental evidence of the last couple of decades confirms the theoretical basis for climate change that goes back 150 years). The forecasts for climate change have dramatically worsened over the last couple of years, and the opportunity to do anything about this is slipping away very quickly.

I found that picture proof enough for me that the flood did occur (not that I ever doubted) why else would they be clinging to each other?

1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain…

So one scientist was 90% certain, and the others needed convincing. When no proof emerged, Cockroft was proven wrong. But in the IPCC we have scientists from every nation in the world discussing the science and settling on a view of 90% certainty. It is not one person but thousands.

Remember that if one scientist is 90% sure and another is 10% sure, then the consensus opinion is no better than 10% sure.

You are right that the politiciosation of this debate has been very damaging. But we should not close our eyes to where the science is taking us just because of that politicisation. Where we go and what we do with the science is a political matter – but the scientific consensus is just that – consensus.

The link seems to be broken on that article you pointed me to, but it is uncontroversial that the earth’s climate is more controlled by the sun than by carbon dioxide. The ice ages, for instance, are largely caused by Milankovitch cycles – perturbations in the earth’s orbit caused by the gravitational attraction of other astronomical bodies. But these operate over much longer periods, and thus allow adaption to the effect.

I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition

I am not sure what evidence he has for being one of the first doctors in Climatology in Canada. I suspect there may be some hair splitting going on there, as there were many Canadians prior to this who researched climate.

As to his extensive background in climatology, I cannot find much evidence for this – but he is right to draw attention to the fact that reconstruction of past climates is his area of expertise. His thesis from the University of London was:

Climate Change in Central Canada, A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850.

I couldn’t immediately find any published papers by him on climate, so a web search revealed these titles that someone turned up after an exhaustive search of web of science and worldcat:

1. “Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada” 1986

2. “Instrumental Temperature Records at 2 Sites in Central Canada, 1768 TO 1910″ 1984

3.”The migration of Geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson-Bay region between 1715 and 1851,” Climatic Change 5, 85-93 (1983).

4. “Climate of 2 locations of the southwestern corner of Hudson-Bay -AD 1720-1729.” International Journal of Climatology 14, 1151-1168 (1994).

So Dr Ball’s expertise lie in understanding how Canadian climate has changed between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This, of course, ties in with the little ice age which followed the medieval warm period, and is an interesting period because of the anomalous conditions in Europe (and the Hudson Bay area) at this time. But in his piece quoted above, Ball gives the impression that the little ice age was a world wide phenomenon. he wrote:

The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Notice that all Dr Ball’s research is over 12 years old. Increasingly we have come to understand that the little ice age was a localised phenomenon. Some have suggested this was because of melt water from retreat of the Greenland ice sheet in the medieval warm period causing a failure of the North atlantic drift to warm Europe (because the melt water had lower salinity, causing the cold water to sink and drive the North Atlantic drift down).

Whatever the reason though, recent research is clear that the little ice age was not a global phenomenon, but a localised one. See for instance:

“Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2002)

Now this is the sum of Dr Ball’s research. Despite his great claims to be a leading climatologist, he has published just 4 peer reviewed papers on the subject – all on Canadian climate change prior to the industrial period.

To put that in context, a researcher in the UK who does not produce at least four peer reviewed papers over three years would not be even entered in the research assessment exercise as a current researcher.

He disagrees with a global consensus on climate change, but he does not carry out research on the subject. He has not published *any* research on the subject for well over a decade. We would do well not to be taken in by such people.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

The problem here (and the real point of this post) is that the whole scientific field has been politicized, both in reference to Global Warming and Creation, such that if any scientist rejects what the consensus says they are labeled a pariah. They are labeled as as stupid, missing the point, and obviously not intellectual since they don’t accept settled science.

Check out this article– it talks about how the leading alternate theory is that the Earth’s temperature is more controlled by the Sun than by human CO2 emissions. It also fits data regarding another warming period in Earth’s history and asks the question “if the Earth is getting warmer, why is Antarctica gaining more ice?

Back to the point– if you’re not on board with the consensus, are you wrong?

Well it does get very cold in Sweden.