[oswald622]

The ice sheet melt should be drilled into the public mind at every opportunity. The denialist idiots like to bleat about 1998 being the warmest year and that there has been cooling ever since. Well, the melting ice cube picture is something simple enough for people to visualize and understand. Can't have melt without warmer temperatures and there is no way around this (forget about soot since air quality has been improving quite a bit). The ice is a great indicator that filters out the meaningless variability that is endlessly cited as explaining everything by the denialists.

Quotations from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976, under 'Weather Modification':

For the purpose of accessing the natural resources and mineral deposits of the Arctic,

'[Soviet and American] scientists and engineers have considered the possibility of purposefully changing the climate of the Northern Hemisphere.'

However, the article notes,

'if the Arctic could be warmed by a small amount, the general circulation of the entire earth would be changed.'

This explanation would explain how glacier melt and climate change can co-exist with lower global mean temperatures. So in regards to your remark, dissident, that we 'Can't have melt without warmer temperatures and there is no way around this,' we find that the warmer temperatures are simply localized.

[Cid_Yama]

You wish. Your supposition is not supported by the data.

This isn't just some philosophical discussion. There actually is a physical world being impacted by these changes.

How you may spin it in your own brain changes the reality not at all.

[oswald622]

You wish. Your supposition is not supported by the data.

"...air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998."

-- David Evans of the Australian Greenhouse Office

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=14504

This isn't just some philosophical discussion. There actually is a physical world being impacted by these changes.

Truth be told, there are several physical worlds being impacted by climate changes - it's happening all across the solar system.

How you may spin it in your own brain changes the reality not at all.

Most of the people on this site have an anti-industrial bias coupled with an active desire to see the death of our civilization's present consumerist form. Therefore if any development presents itself, which either augurs the collapse and decline of contemporary society, or else portrays that society as the villain, then you all are far more likely to accept said development as legitimate and true - it validates your desires and preconceptions. Can't we agree, for instance, that those of us who foresaw a fast collapse immediately post-peak, were also the most psychologically invested in the idea? (I count myself among that number, incidentally.)

My own view is wrapped up by this prediction made in 1989, when, after the fall of the USSR, a new mythology would be required to supplant the Cold War paradigm:

"Soon there will be a worldwide Green movement, and the establishment of a worldwide state, which the few will take over, thus enslaving us all while forgetting to save the planet."

-- Gore Vidal in "Cue the Green God, Ted" in The Nation magazine.

The discussions revolving around global warming and environmental issues in general, all seem to share features like contempt for the ordinary ('useless', 'stupid', 'fat', etc.) human being, and agreement that national sovereignty (especially among the so-called democracies) is a nuisance that needs eventually to be phased out. Call me crazy, but this kind of elitism is suspiciously supportive of tyranny.

None of us really, truly knows the reality of the situation. Cosmic rays? Solar fluctuations? CO2 build-up? Exotic military applications? Natural earth cycles? Maybe! Are any of these testable hypotheses? No. Rather they are based upon speculation, vague statistical analysis and inconsistent models. So I think we ought to humbly approach the topic with a realistic skepticism about our access to the truth. Even if we arrive at a definite and informed opinion, at what level can we gauge our confidence? Do we have 100% confidence in the 'scientific consensus' - as if science worked by consensus? Is there a 0% chance for error in judgment? No? Then let's not allow our crusader's zeal to convince us otherwise.

[Lore]

"...air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998."

-- David Evans of the Australian Greenhouse Office

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=14504

Your source's statement is not supported by the data.

UK’s Met Office found “the past 10 years has seen a 0.13°C increase in global average temperature”. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has a better temperature record, finds a 0.19°C (0.34°F) warming over the past decade. Temperatures are, if anything, accelerating — but not in a monotonic fashion.

David Evans disputing global warming as a former "consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005".

Truth be told, there are several physical worlds being impacted by climate changes - it's happening all across the solar system.

Surprised? Other planets in our solar system have climates too. They have nothing to do with our planet and our present climate change.

Most of the people on this site have an anti-industrial bias coupled with an active desire to see the death of our civilization's present consumerist form. Therefore if any development presents itself, which either augurs the collapse and decline of contemporary society, or else portrays that society as the villain, then you all are far more likely to accept said development as legitimate and true - it validates your desires and preconceptions. Can't we agree, for instance, that those of us who foresaw a fast collapse immediately post-peak, were also the most psychologically invested in the idea? (I count myself among that number, incidentally.)

My own view is wrapped up by this prediction made in 1989, when, after the fall of the USSR, a new mythology would be required to supplant the Cold War paradigm:

"Soon there will be a worldwide Green movement, and the establishment of a worldwide state, which the few will take over, thus enslaving us all while forgetting to save the planet."

-- Gore Vidal in "Cue the Green God, Ted" in The Nation magazine.

The discussions revolving around global warming and environmental issues in general, all seem to share features like contempt for the ordinary ('useless', 'stupid', 'fat', etc.) human being, and agreement that national sovereignty (especially among the so-called democracies) is a nuisance that needs eventually to be phased out. Call me crazy, but this kind of elitism is suspiciously supportive of tyranny.

Conspiracy claptrap.

None of us really, truly knows the reality of the situation. Cosmic rays? Solar fluctuations? CO2 build-up? Exotic military applications? Natural earth cycles? Maybe! Are any of these testable hypotheses? No. Rather they are based upon speculation, vague statistical analysis and inconsistent models. So I think we ought to humbly approach the topic with a realistic skepticism about our access to the truth. Even if we arrive at a definite and informed opinion, at what level can we gauge our confidence? Do we have 100% confidence in the 'scientific consensus' - as if science worked by consensus? Is there a 0% chance for error in judgment? No? Then let's not allow our crusader's zeal to convince us otherwise.

All of which above have been investigated. Yes, the hypotheses are testable, that's what science is about. The statistical analysis is not vague, or are the models inconsistent. Science will never have 100% confidence in any given theory, they are always subject to revision and change. It relies on the preponderance of evidence to make claims. So far only one, AGW, has proved to hold up under our present climate change facts. What scientists are trying to determine today is how quickly the changes will take place and how severe they will be given our present course of action.

[mcgowanjm]

What scientists are trying to determine today is how quickly the changes will take place and how severe they will be given our present course of action.

By the time Nature's collection agencies get through with us, in turn, they may just have repossessed everything we bought with our borrowings – which is to say nearly everything we've built over the last three centuries.

Two meter sea level rise unstoppable: experts
Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:12am EDT

By Gerard Wynn

OXFORD, England (Reuters) - A rise of at least two meters in the world's sea levels is now almost unstoppable, experts told a climate conference at Oxford University on Tuesday.

"The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at Germany's Potsdam Institute and a widely recognized sea level expert.

"There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE58S4L420090930

[DryObserver]

Painting the roads in any shade is crazy - it would wear off immediately.
Just about as crazy as solar or conductive roads.

Let's test that supposition, shall we?

Let's paint some lines on our roads, perhaps in yellow. Some of them can be a single line of dashes, others can be double yellow lines. Some can combine those options.

Tell me: When people paint such lines in your area -- assuming, hypothetically, that they ever do -- do they all wear off immediately?

Because that isn't the experience we've had in my area.

Furthermore, you'd be surprised how little road wear you'll see when you paint the average rooftop white. Apparently many motorists aren't adventurous enough to take their SUVs roof hopping.

[DryObserver]

Try painting all of the asphalt roofs and roads white, thereby changing the albedo for a substantial part of the Earth's surface (that is presently dark gray to black).

Yes, great idea! Perhaps if the deckhands had pulled out their paint cans to begin repainting all the deck chairs, the titanic would not have taken a detour to the sea floor.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but come on! If your going to spend that much energy on a project, at least do it for something worthwhile. Instead of painting the roads white, just turn them into bike paths. I know that won't happen, but neither will painting every city in the world white.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City was on Charlie Rose a few months ago with his top two environmental advisors. One of them commented that just by using my idea of painting the roof of a building white, they would save an average of 10 or 15% of the structure's annual electrical bill. (I've forgotten the precise number, but it was on that scale.) And remember, these are buildings in New York City. Admittedly, New York suffers from a heck of a heat-island effect, but this is one of our more northern American cities.

Imagine, first, what the energy savings are for the typical New York skyscraper if it can save just 10% on its electrical bills in exchange for just painting its roof white... a relatively small part of its exposed surface area.

Then imagine what the economic and energy consequences would be at the core of much warmer industrial cities, especially if they painted the streets at the heart of their municipalities as well. To be blunt, this is cheap, and I never thought it would realize those kinds of saving that fast. But since it's a readily available tool, why not use it?

You might ask what's the harm in trying this white wash idea? It's pansy (bleep!) ideas like this that allow yuppies to feel good about themselves that they voted for something green, meanwhile consuming ever vaster quantities of energy. They did their good deed for the year, they helped protect the planet, now they can go back to their 72inch LCD TV's. Half-(bleep!) band-aid ideas hinder real work that could be done, because most people will always choose the easiest way to get something done. If they think they are doing something by buying a green product, they will. And then their done. Finito. Global warming problem solved. On to the next fad.

Look, if you follow what I've written, I'm obviously very much in favor of cutting emissions and even extracting as much excess carbon as possible from the atmosphere. In fact, I've laid out inexpensive, easily budgeted ways to get lots of fruit and nut trees planted as a means of reducing carbon as well as a long-term food source. And while I also support reducing our use of fossil fuels, peak oil and a possible crash of industrial civilization may accomplish that far faster than any program of change, much as I would prefer a less destructive option.

But scientists are talking about losing the summer sea ice in the Arctic -- all of it -- in four years. "Summer" is basically the Arctic's six months of "daytime," when the sunlight is constant, and in which that continent-sized piece of ice reflects an immense amount of solar energy back out of our atmosphere. If it disappears during the polar day, that means dark, deep seawater will be absorbing most of that presently reflected sunlight instead.

Why is that a problem? Because that will not only further accelerate climate change, it will probably accelerate other processes that are accelerating climate change, such as the release of methane from defrosting Arctic tundra and from methane clathrates at the bottom of our oceans. (Methane is about 23 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.) Not to mention other details, like the meltdown of Greenland's icecap.

The latter would raise global sea levels by over 20 feet when completely melted. The former could trigger a rapid, runaway heat up of our atmosphere.

If we can radically reduce the amount of sunlight we are absorbing and re-radiating as heat in warmer regions, where solar energy hits us more directly, it could directly and rapidly impact this swiftly snowballing situation.

Or, alternatively, we could all die.

I would prefer the former of those two alternatives.

On the positive side, some less accepted theories such as a possible snap ice age following the failure of the North Atlantic Current, could interrupt such a runaway heating event and only kill most of the life in Europe and possibly the world, instead of virtually all of it.

So there is that.

[KevO]

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=596

The Greenland ice sheet is losing ice at an ever increasing rate, say scientists. What's more, they've shown for the first time that the loss of ice is split equally between what's happening on the surface - like ice melting and varying levels of snowfall - and icebergs calving off from the fronts of glaciers.

[hillsidedigger]

"They found that between 2000 and 2008, Greenland lost around 1500 billion tons of ice,"

For persective, that's about 250 cubic miles.

As a comparison, the world extracts and burns about one cubic mile of coal and one cubic mile of petroleum each year.

The eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980 only ejected about 2/3rds. of a cubic mile of material.

[NoWorries]

If it's such a large number, then how come sea levels haven't increased?

[drew]

And how many square miles of ocean do you think there are? That is your answer, friend....

Drew

[Lore]

But it is rising,... and picking up speed.

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

[hillsidedigger]

And how many square miles of ocean do you think there are? That is your answer, friend....

Drew

There is about 140 million square miles of ocean surface on Earth and 250 cubic miles of melt would raise ocean levels about 1/8th. of an inch

but Greenland has hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of ice and so a great meltoff, if it is to occur, has barely started.

[evgeny]

The developing world has put forward a UN ultimatum


Began in Copenhagen a week ago, 15-th UN Conference on Climate Change is shaken by scandals, following one after another. Today, its work was blocked, when the representatives of developing countries (primarily Africa) have announced their refusal to participate in the conference.

They accused the industrialized countries that they intend to review in its favor quotas on greenhouse gas emissions, some Kyoto Protocol.

Recall that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 to combat the so-called. "Greenhouse effect".

According to this document, all countries were instructed to reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. Each country was allocated a quota for carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in an odd carbon market - the developed countries exceeding their quotas, they have to buy a not so developed that they are not fully used. By the way, countries classified as "developing" in that even good living.

Another thing is that the U.S. decided not to take any obligations, and in 2001 rejected the Kyoto Protocol. World opinion of course, condemned, but the Americans habitually spit on her opinion.

Nevertheless, in Copenhagen during this conference yet been developed draft of the new agreement, which is intended to introduce to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and it just suggests that significant reductions by 2020 to ensure that the developed countries. However, a group of dissatisfied states demanded that the confirmation of the Kyoto Protocol, which basically limits it imposes on developed countries received priority over a broader debate about the "long-term vision" to combat global warming. If this is done, developing countries continue to refuse to work at the conference.

This, incidentally, is not the first scandal at the Copenhagen conference. As already reported KM.RU, in Copenhagen on the eve of the signing of new agreements to combat greenhouse gases exploded, "information bomb": hackers to break into the server of the University of East Anglia, laid out in the correspondence network of scientists, from which it can be concluded that in recent years the temperature on Earth not increase. This written British newspaper The Times. Fragments of correspondence, according to the publication, hackers have posted "on Russia's server.

Access to the archive e-mail, numbering about 1000 letters, as well as the 3000 documents intended for official use, hackers, reports the Associated Press, received in mid-November 2009. Among the documents that became public knowledge - a letter from Professor Phil Jones, who heads the Center for Research on Climate (Climate Research Unit) University of East Anglia, where he describes the "trick" that makes it possible to conceal the temperature decrease. Jones Letter dated November 1999. In the correspondence involved British scientists, NASA and the staff of U.S. universities. From the documents made public it is clear that in recent years, the temperature on Earth is not increased, and, conversely, decreases.

At the University of East Anglia, a fact confirmed the leak, but refused to comment on the truth of network-published data.

The authors of the portal Examiner.com, which were made public a letter internal correspondence of scientists, ambiguously indicate the presence in the story "Russian trace" - say, the server of the University of East Anglia, was attacked from Russia.

Of particular interest in a long thread (the branches of the discussion ") letters are harmonically especially scientific terminology, intra banter and profanity, is a comment of a prominent European climatologist Phil Jones:" I just adjusted the figure by Tim for his article in the journal Nature, which he send to the editor today or tomorrow. I increased the value of average annual temperatures in order to hide their fall, and I added just 0.44 degrees from 1961 to 1990. And another 0.35 degrees - from 1990 to 1999.

Thus, the researchers "warmed" planet nearly one degree - and that was enough to stoke the mass hysteria surrounding the notorious greenhouse gas, which every year becomes bigger and more expensive for each of the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Sam Phil Jones promulgated in response to correspondence confirmed the reliability of writing almost 10 years ago. In a statement published on the website of the Center for Research on Climate University of East Anglia, he noted that "just been discussing with colleagues, some not related to the study of charts, which, in their opinion, were incorrect and they should be corrected taking account of the considerations. The word "trick" he used as a colloquialism and not aimed to falsify the data and mislead the public.

According to Phil Jones, who resigned after the noise rose up, ill-fated documents snared by no accident. It was not a sudden success rabid opponents of global warming, and planned action, which led the staff of Russia's FSB.

In any case, the statements of concern for the future of the planet's ecology, in fact hiding rough financial calculations.

For example, China, which is traditionally headed by a bloc of developing countries, put forward the idea of payment by Western countries "export" carbon dioxide emissions. That is, when purchasing Chinese goods the buyer must return the original PRC tax formed in the process of its production of greenhouse gases.

Another initiative of developing countries - the creation of a special fund, which will be spent on combating climate change. Replenish the treasury stock as much as two hundred billion dollars to the developed industrial powers. Money Fund of the State, which had not yet earned the status of developed countries, are going to use to move closer to this goal through the introduction of modern environmentally sound technologies. Theoretically, the developed countries are not against the idea of establishing such a fund. But they demand that they themselves should determine their contributions to this fund and monitor its work.

Russia declares its "neutral", and even generously agreed to reduce their emissions quotas by 25% from 1990 levels. However, Russia's government still has not signed the Ecological Doctrine of Russia - a document governing the state policy in the field of ecology. And it looks like Russia's "neutrality" is defined by a certain indifference to the process.

At the time, Russia's government unsuccessfully tried to trade their emissions quotas. And now, seeing no direct financial interest, allows himself to the noble gestures with a voluntary reduction in quotas. However, Western experts say that Russia live up to their commitments and so it more than profitable. Calculations showed the British Ministry of Energy and Climate Change, reduction in 2020 emissions by 25% from 1990 levels as promised by the government of Russia, actually means an increase of 14 per cent over 2007.

[evgeny]

President visits Russia's Academy of Sciences


On Tuesday, Dec. 15, Dmitri Medvedev, perhaps, again briefly felt like a student. At a meeting with members of Russia's Academy of Sciences president read this lecture on climate change. Medvedev listened attentively and humbly, showing great respect for academics. Besides the information provided to the President soon may well be useful. This coming Friday, the head of state to go to Konpengagen to participate in the UN Conference on Climate Change.

Today, scientists in several voices assured that the fear the apocalypse is not worth it. Current climate warming is not so dangerous to us, as it is increasingly trying to convince us abroad.

- We must take a balanced position! Do not assume difficult to implement commitments to reduce industrial emissions - inspired Medvedev President of RAS Yuri Osipov. - But the transition to modern machinery, lowering the cost of fuel, would be fundamentally changed the situation.

-We do not need to panic, to rush to extremes, to say that all was lost. On the other hand - can not do nothing, - has supported this approach Medvedev, and then in turn decided to educate themselves a little academics.

- In addition to scientific evidence, here heavily implicated politics, there are business interests, and finally there are the emotional factors that are always warm up the situation! - Said the head of state.

- The main purpose of fighters to global warming - to make major countries, including Russia, to renounce the hydrocarbon and switch to renewable energy, primarily for biofuels. Those countries which are the first to master the new technology will have tremendous profits. It is clear that Russia, which has a huge income from mining and oil and gas, not among them .

- We should not allow us to cheat! - Said Medvedev. - We must develop alternative energy, but also about the hydrocarbon energy must never forget ! In all this I already feel the taste of money! So, we are dealing with big politics, and with big money!

[evgeny]

And how many square miles of ocean do you think there are? That is your answer, friend....

Drew

There is about 140 million square miles of ocean surface on Earth and 250 cubic miles of melt would raise ocean levels about 1/8th. of an inch

but Greenland has hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of ice and so a great meltoff, if it is to occur, has barely started.

from the history, we know that in 8-9 centuries in England grew grapes, and now covered with ice Greenland was "completely covered with greenery.

"Currently, the cows are a major source of methane - the gas whose greenhouse effect is much greater than the impact on the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. The cattle account for three-quarters of global methane emissions."

Cows fart a lot - because of this the oceans can leave the shores of ...

"Killing a cow saved the planet"

[hillsidedigger]

And how many square miles of ocean do you think there are? That is your answer, friend....

Drew

There is about 140 million square miles of ocean surface on Earth and 250 cubic miles of melt would raise ocean levels about 1/8th. of an inch

but Greenland has hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of ice and so a great meltoff, if it is to occur, has barely started.

from the history, we know that in 8-9 centuries in England grew grapes, and now covered with ice Greenland was "completely covered with greenery.

"Currently, the cows are a major source of methane - the gas whose greenhouse effect is much greater than the impact on the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. The cattle account for three-quarters of global methane emissions."

Cows fart a lot - because of this the oceans can leave the shores of ...

"Killing a cow saved the planet"

Greenland was not covered with green during the time of the Viking settlements. There was simply a little green around the southern fringes which the livestock of the few thousand Vikings quickly denuded allowing the topsoil to wash away.

Greenland is a huge island and the Vikings only saw and explored only a tiny fraction of it.

The 5,000+' deep ice-cap covering most all of Greenland did not build from green pastures in only 800 years.

[katkinkate]

Has anyone heard any further word on the fate of the 90 rubber ducks NASA consigned to the melt waters of a Greenland glacier in September 2008?

[bluekachina]

Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy has been given approval to start drilling the first two wells in Greenland.

Cairn has a four-well exploration programme planned in the Disko West area offshore in Western Greenland.

The company has insisted it has taken precautions, hiring two new state-of-the art drilling rigs to ensure there is no possibility of a repeat of the recent disaster which has devastated the Gulf of Mexico.

link

No way to clean up oil spill under Arctic ice

There is no known way of cleaning up a major oil spill under the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, a parliamentary committee heard Tuesday.

Canadian regulators have been closely monitoring ongoing efforts to clean up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But a senior official with a Canadian firm that specializes in oil-spill response told the House of Commons natural-resources committee that many of the techniques being used in the Gulf would be useless if a big spill were to occur under the Arctic ice.

"There does not exist today technology that can recover oil from ice," said Ron Bowden, manager of international sales with Aqua-Guard Spill Response, a company based in North Vancouver.

Bowden said traditional methods of cleaning up spills, such as the use of containment booms, would be ineffective at capturing oil trapped under the ice.

"You can't lay boom on ice," he said. "You can't recover oil from the surface, because it's hampered by the ice or under the ice, so it's quite a different scenario, and there is really no solution or method today that we're aware of that can actually recover oil from the Arctic."

link

[Laromi]

I agree we may be in for quite a wild summer for arctic ice. I'm expecting a big drop off in extent and area in July. But hyperbole is fodder for some idiots to poke holes in predictions. This is not it. Whatever 'it' is.

Dr.Gray
[quote]But hyperbole is fodder for some idiots to poke holes in predictions.[quote]

One can only “poke” holes in things that are not sound, that is, things based in fact not models. Anything based on best guessing is still guessing, not fact, and therefore is open to argument or debate by idiots or else-wise. The future is never a done deal!

Predictions are based in historical events, geological artifacts indicate past events of undulating temperatures to the extreme that’s true, it’s a fact.

Models are assumptions usually based on fact; that we were heading into an ice age in the 1970’s was a “fact” based on scientific modeling, and in 2013 (or the late 1980’s) that we are heading into a global fry-up predictions is a “fact”, again, based on scientific modeling.

To extend the argument of natural planetary warming or cooling based on geological interpretation of past events are treated as non events, hoaxes if you like, by some scientific bodies; for an analogy and currencies in argument see, LENR. However, there are Eons of elapsed time that geologically, stand witness to past global warming and cooling events.

That anthropological warming as the sole cause of warming is not elucidated properly in public papers, nor is the fact of naturally occurring global warming episodes adequately addressed, over which, historically, mankind has had no control, and probably never will have.

Physics of the homosphere and heterosphere explains solar, and most (known) space or galactic energies that are likely to adversely affect the earth. Can we control them, short answer is no, however, can we can control manmade emissions? The obvious answer is yes, but to what extent do these emissions in conjunction with naturally occurring emissions (earth core events, gravitational flexing, volcano’s, forest fires and etc.) need to be controlled to produce a measurable effect when it is not definitively known to what extent “natural” global warming process alone will have on the planet?

Are we only going to cool the planet down to assist in precipitating an Ice-Age? Like the one we were going to have in the 70’s for instance. I believe to reason that if we can cool the planet down to avoid a fry-up, we can warm the planet up to prevent an imminent Ice-Age, what say you Dr. Gray?

Pointing to modeling as the answer is a fancy way of saying I think so. Predicting an event, such as; based on what the horse ate, its fitness level, the jockey etc. is no guarantee it will win. Those factors may be a good indication it will run a place, but even that is a gamble. So, what’s the bet are we heading for an Ice-Age, or the deep fryer?

Being complacent about AGW is not the right step, nor is scaring the population about end of the world predictions, forever there will be arguments about the value of pure white, but that is of perception, not necessarily scientific evaluation alone, as is AGW.