Q&A, I'm sure you observed how the blinded IPCC and AGW greenhousers led a chorus of approval when they embraced with a complete lack of critical evaluation M Mann's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history with his "hockey stick " chart and hypothesis , ..... and "for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear."

The IPCC's eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate here is how anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

I've read that report published at the International Cosmic Ray Conference and needless to say I'm not impressed. I wonder when variation in low cloud cover caused by modulation from cosmic radiation will ever penetrate their closed mindset.

Whilst there is minimal correlation at high and middle altitudes there is an excellent match at low altitudes up to 3km. One feels that there are always plenty of cosmic rays high in the air, but they and the ions that they liberate are in short supply at low altitudes, so that increases or decreases due to changes in solar magnetism have more noticeable consequences lower down and I suspect at lower latitudes too. Further, as we approach what appears to be an extended solar minimum we are seeing this associated with a cloudy and cooler period across the tropics. This lack of warmth in the ocean will eventually transfer to the high latitudes north and south creating changes.

Q&A, your link to information on the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy and other smaller, nearby galaxies is interesting and raises many questions of course. e.g. as found with this bloke's blog ..
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423

Just indicates how very little we seem to know about our place in the universe. I've long felt the universe to be an infinite environment .... always existed. Like if you see colliding galaxies how can anyone suggest the big bang hypothesis of an expanding universe? Anyway, as far as earth's climate is concerned we cannot rule out solar/cosmic events as the obvious driver of change. Now ignoring that would certainly qualify as climate inaction.

You may like to explore an astrophysicist like Nir Shaviv's ideas on the spiral arms and star formation histories within and about the milky way galaxy which seeks to clarify the climate connection over longer spans of time. It really is at the cutting edge of discovery and as a story it should become clearer as the data improves if it is to be a successful paradigm.

A double entente on ‘climate change’ Keiran? Yes, I thought you would like the link.

No scientist is “ruling out” GCR as a radiative forcing in GCM’s Keiran. On the contrary, cosmic-rays are given attribution as one of the drivers. BUT, solar/cosmic is not the “obvious” or main driver as you imply – particularly over the relatively small time scales of a few hundred years compared to the geological time since the planet’s birth.

IOW, over the millennia, galactic and solar perturbations must be a major driver of so called climate change, but over the short time scale since the industrial revolution, GHGs are shown to be the major forcing; by numerous proxy reconstructions, isotope and attribution studies.

This is particularly relevant, seeing that we are supposed to be on the tail of a 'little ice age' – IMO, the globe is warming, not cooling, as any serious scientist does not dispute.

I do respect Nir’s efforts in cosmic ray research (the reason for my link and the reason for our ‘improved’ dialogue no doubt). However, he has to convincingly show (he hasn't) that he can model clouds well enough to say what the cosmic-ray influence translates into in terms of W/m2. If Nir can do this with good accuracy, they would be included in the GCMs and he will become famous!

However, just because he (or yourself) thinks does not make it so - his postulates must be tested and validated, this has not been done yet to any peer satisfaction.

We do need a modern day Galileo, Newton or Einstein – maybe Nir is the ‘one’.

As for the philosophy of climate change (in)action. I tend to agree with the following interpretation.

Some people are in DENIAL, the 1st stage. People that simply do not believe the science that the earth is warming, or that we are the cause. Despite seeing a 50 year record of global atmospheric CO2 rising every year since 1957, and global air temperatures of the last 12 years in a row being the warmest in a millennium, they dismiss these trends as natural variability. These people see no reason to disturb the status quo. Most people begin at this stage, until presented with evidence.

Many people jump directly from DENIAL to Stage 4, but for others, the next Stage 2, is ANGER, and is manifested by wild comments like “I refuse to live in a tree house in the dark and eat nuts and berries”. Some individuals are incensed at the thought of substantially altering their lifestyle – a load of ‘crock’.

Stage 3 is BARGAINING. When they reach this stage many people (such as self-righteous radio talk show hosts and journo’s who used to be very public deniers of global warming) begin making statements that warming won’t be all that bad, it might open the North Sea Passage for tourism and oil exploration. At this stage people grasp for the positive news about climate change, such as longer growing seasons, and scrupulously ignore the negative news; more intense droughts and floods, and greatly increased glacier melt. Most importantly, at this stage people are still not willing to change lifestyles. They seem willing to ride out this grand global experiment and cope with whatever happens.

Many people have now moved to Stage 4, DEPRESSION. They consider the acceleration of annual greenhouse gas emissions, the unprecedented speed of warming, and the necessity for international cooperation for a solution, and see the task ahead to be impossible.

Stage 5, ACCEPTANCE. People (leaders of countries, captains of business and individuals) acknowledge the scientific facts calmly, and are now exploring solutions to drive down greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, and find non-carbon intensive energy sources.

Q and A

I am pleased to report that I remain firmly at your stage 1. I have seen no conclusive evidence that demonstrates any alleged warming is outside of the limits set by natural variation.

Should you care to glance at the submission and appendices of the Lavoisier Submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review. You will note that I am not alone in recognising anthropogenic global warming as junk science.

A-G, no-one that I'm aware of is arguing that currently observed warming is "outside the limits set by natural variation", merely that human influence is currently the best explanation we have for the warming observed over the last 100 years. The IPCC readily admits the uncertainities involved, and the difficulty of separating human causes from natural ones. But even if the IPCC was half as certain as it actually is regarding the danger of continued warming, there would be plenty of grounds for action, especially considering most of the best solutions are economically beneficial anyway.

That you can the word of an organisation such as the Lavoisier Institute, with a vested interest in protecting the profits of energy-intensive industries, over thousands of professional scientists who have committed their life's study and work to understand climate systems and the Earth's ecology is odd indeed.