Odd how people who don’t understand what they’re talking about conclude that the problem is something other than their lack of understanding.

Thank you for your less than cordial response. You said, “I appreciate your comments,” but it seems clear that you did not, because “gone are the days.”

You accuse me of being a troll. That was not my intent. A conversation? Yes. A flame-throwing contest? No. I suppose gone are the days when ideas can be discussed cordially. I’ve had some very cordial conversations and correspondence with scientists over the years, including a nice email from a climate scientist in San Diego just a few days ago. I even co-authored a book with a PhD forest ecologist back in 83. No, maybe the lack of cordiality is here.

Lies? Me? Are you claiming to be omniscient? You know for a fact that it’s a lie? I usually like a lively debate about facts, but your long comment seems to be almost entirely ad hominem (logical fallacy), with perhaps a little strawman thrown in for good measure.

You said, “everything you say about the science of climate is wrong.” And yet, you agree with me that “a glacial period would be a disaster.” Another logical fallacy.

You say, “generally understood that the glacial age ship sailed as we were passing something like 300 – 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.”

According to a climate graph based on several peer reviewed climate papers, initial glaciation of Antarctica started during a period of CO2 levels between 800 – 1800 ppm (~34 Ma). When CO2 levels fell below 800 ppm (~31 Ma), plants freaked out and evolved C4 species to cope with the CO2 starvation. These are facts you can look up, or ignore (Ref: Pagani 1999, Berner GeoCarb III, Pagani 2005, Antarctic Ice Core Composite, Royer 2006 Composites, Pearson 2000, IPCC AR4 2007 – Royer 2008 Composites, Pearson 2009, Tripati 2009, Bao 2008, Hoenisch 2009, Seki 2010, Beerling Royer 2011, Bartoli 2011, Mcanena 2013).

The Jurassic-Cretaceous cool period (not really an Ice Age, because, at its coldest, it was several degrees warmer than today) occurred during a massive CO2 peak — the highest point in the last 350 million years (Ref: C.R. Scotese).

I was hoping for something better, here. But it seems that ego has taken over this area of “science.” Being right in your own mind seems more important than discovery. And that seems anti-science.

Since this is not a venue for cordial discussions, but only cheers from the choir, I will bid you adieu.

* Earth has been far warmer and life thrived.

True. But human civilization was not part of life then. It is the possibility that climate change may end human civilization that concerns us.

* The Ice Age comes along and life struggles…

Earlier you stated that we live in an ongoing ice age. Use of terms in sloppy and even contradictory ways casts doubt on your understanding of the problem.

* Fast forward to the summer of 2016, and CIA Director Brennan is talking to the CFR, telling how wonderful is the new technique to cool down the planet “like volcanoes do.”

As you should know if you’ve studied the geoengineering techniques proposed, most scientists think they are all really bad ideas. You could read Oliver Morton’s latest book to get up to speed on the subject. However, I recommend The Madhouse Effect by Mann & Toles for a succinct but accurate overview.

Review of The Madhouse Effect

As did anyone doing higher level physical geography. But this does not disprove AGW. Indeed none of that section I condensed managed to do that. Mind you it didn’t claim it to disprove AGW, you only prattled it out.

“Earth has been far warmer and life thrived. The Ice Age comes along and life struggles, and the UN wants to end the current interglacial? Am I missing anything here?”

Yes, anything showing the UN is wrong. Or, indeed, that the UN “wants to end the current interglacial”. Or that even if this were all given, that AGW is therefore wrong.

“Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. ”

No it didn’t. Bare assertion countered equally by more blank assertion from me.

“A massive warming spike of 5-7 degrees Celsius in 50 years changed the environment in favor of life”

Proof required. Were you there? Where’s the data? How was it created and calibrated, or were you there with a global thermometer?

Nah, you’re just parroting the denier talking point about the (polar) Vostock Ice core, which shows that level of warming (but being polar, it’s a much higher figure than the global average), but has nowhere NEAR that level of accuracy in time.

“I love our world, our fellow humans, and civilization. There’s a lot that needs fixing, but there’s a lot of potential in us, still.”

Even if that were the case, rather than you love living guilt free, it still doesn’t show AGW is wrong, or that the UN wants the end of civilisation (or whatever the hell you think is going on).

How many times does it happen that when someone leads with this but follows with comments that clearly contradict it?

It is sadly similar to the situation when a conversation with someone begins with “I am not a racist, but …”

Rod, I appreciate your comments, but, you are a troll.

You are a concern troll. You do this by telling us lies about how you once felt, then how you changed, then how you discovered the “truth” and then changed again.

You are a science fakir. You claim to have been informed by science but everything you say about the science of climate is wrong, demonstrably wrong, everyone who reads this blog knows it is wrong, and you know it is wrong.

Gone are the days when it is advisable to be polite to people like you.

We are all in agreement that a glacial period would be a disaster. But it is generally understood that the glacial age ship sailed as we were passing something like 300 – 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

Have a nice day.

Sometimes life gives us rude awakenings. They come in many forms. When I discovered that Al Gore and I had been horribly wrong, it destroyed me at least a little. For days, I felt crushed and betrayed — more from what I had done, or not done, than from what anyone else had done. I had not done my homework.

Since the early 70s, I had studied climate science, and many other sciences. Most of my interest was purely academic. Some I applied to my writing. So, when I first heard of Al Gore and the “climate change” movement, I was fully prepared. I knew humans had been polluting the world. I thought it was shameful and we needed to do something.

So, what changed?

I learned, for instance, that we live in an ongoing Ice Age. There remains a great deal of confusion on this point. What actually ended 12,000 years ago? Some say the Pleistocene, or Pleistocene Ice Age. But when you look at the climate record, you see that the Pleistocene consisted of glacial periods and interglacials — several dozen of each. Our Holocene is merely another interglacial period in a long sequence of interglacials. The definition of “interglacial” means “warmer phase of an Ice Age.” Ironically, the UN wants to cool down the planet.

Earth has been far warmer and life thrived. The Ice Age comes along and life struggles, and the UN wants to end the current interglacial? Am I missing anything here?

During the 1816, year without a summer, thousands died internationally, and that was from a -1C of cooling globally. Thousands more were turned into climate refugees because a volcano blew its stack halfway around the world. Fast forward to the summer of 2016, and CIA Director Brennan is talking to the CFR, telling how wonderful is the new technique to cool down the planet “like volcanoes do.” On the 200th anniversary of the year without a summer, the US government is talking about a possible repeat. The only problem is that our Holocene is already as much as 6,000 years older than the average interglacial (Ref: W.S. Broecker, 1998). And according to the data of Alley (2000), the last 4 warm periods of the 10 Holocene warm periods show a strong cooling downtrend. Combined with the deep and broad cooling of the Little Ice Age, it looks as thought the Holocene may already have started to shut down, preparing for the next glacial period.

Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. A massive warming spike of 5-7 degrees Celsius in 50 years changed the environment in favor of life, and away from the death of ice and cold. Suddenly, agriculture was broadly possible for the first time in 90,000 years.

If the Holocene were to accelerate in its shut down because of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, as CIA Director Brennan suggested, then we could see another 90,000 years without summers, rain, crops, food, and civilization. That would give us plenty of time to reflect on our gullibility to Biggest Oil Rockefellers and their UN minions, like the late Maurice Strong (Canadian big oil).

I love our world, our fellow humans, and civilization. There’s a lot that needs fixing, but there’s a lot of potential in us, still.

For those who want to save the ice and the coastal real estate, good luck. But realize the other side of the equation. Cooling the planet could kill off 99% of all humans, but then you’d lose an equal amount of real estate to glaciation and desertification. After all, cold oceans don’t offer much for rain.