Antarctica warmth ‘unusual, but not unique’

By Jonathan Ball

BBC News

“In his Nature paper, Dr Mulvaney did not conclude that the recent changes observed in the peninsula were down to human activity.

However, when asked about this, he said: ‘If I am pressed to say whether I think it’s human-induced, then I would say what we are seeing is human-induced.’”

Antarctic warmth not unique

Interesting that Dr Mulvaney did not publish his personal conclusions.  Thankfully, Dr. James Hansen does so.

We didn’t really need to be told that Antarctic ice melting is not unprecedented.  Most people are aware that we have had glacial and interglacial periods before.  Further, it is well accepted that “Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt produce natural fluctuations in climate.”  Unfortunately, the key “natural fluctuations” favour cooling rather than the increasing warming we are recording now.

Few climate scientists, except the handful who are paid as detractors, argue about the causes of global warming.  To offer “natural fluctuations” as a significant point in the argument as to the effect of human activity on global warming is spurious at the least and downright misleading.  Looking at the last interglacial period, for instance, average temperatures in northern latitudes was higher and sea levels significantly higher – this quite in keeping with the expected effect of the natural fluctuations of the time.  The next to the last interglacial period had natural fluctuations much more similar than the last one.

The huge significant fact is that in both of these the level of CO2 was much, much lower.

I have made my case for the evidence of anthropogenic causes of global warming below:

In summary, the press focuses on controversy.  Alarmingly, the global warming detractors are just a handful but are given press coverage as if they were a significant number.  Sadly, many, as I mentioned above, are paid to amplify ambiguities.  If you think about it, most of the scientific data on the behaviour of living beings is ambiguous.  We readily [we  don’t have a choice, actually] accept ambiguity and uncertainty, for example, from the establishment medical profession.  We are often told to try this drug and come back if it doesn’t work.  We pay the bill whether the medicine “works” or not.

Climate change science would be so much easier to understand and appreciate if we examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that earth scientists are studying a living being and not a mechanical object.  We should not expect certainty in the same way as we do with a machine.  We have a whole set of scientific evidence around Gaia theory.
Sadly, some “theories” are favoured by establishment science over others whilst the public has been conditioned to believe in an unbiased scientific community.  Sorry, that is just not true.  Some scientific “truths” are more popular than others whilst other “truths,” such as that fact that the earth revolves around the sun and that the world is not flat, took centuries to become “popular.”

Sadly for Earthly living beings, we do not have centuries to avoid the consequences of excessive burning of fossil fuel and the continued chopping of forests to build structures for a human population growth that is completely out of control.

I rest my case in my book “Planet as Self” where I suggest an Earthen Spirituality, a spirituality built around the principle that earthly beings “are” the planet and not just “on” a planet.  We will not risk the consequences of the sacrifices needed to turn our situation around unless we come to respect and admire Gaia as our, for want of a more developed vocabulary, higher self.