Do you read what you quote? You lambasted me for saying "a number of scientists" support man made climate change and then quote a paper on glaciers which says "Some scientists attribute this retreat to the Industrial Revolution; burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and affects our environment in ways we did not understand before"
The same paper also states, using Ötzi as an example (the museum is well worth a visit), that the ice in that area has returned to the level it was 5000 years ago. What caused it to recede that time? I doubt if it was due to man's activities.
The coming of the next ice age is also a little bit more than a book and a couple of newspaper articles, I suggest that you look at this website from the University of California.
We are clearly in the area of relatively rapid global warming that precedes another ice age as has happened cyclically during the last 400,000 years.
You also challenge me on my understanding of the scientific method. I certainly understand it, it requires in my words:
Observation of events
Determination of the cause of these events (not statistical or coincidental correlations)
Development of predictive models
Confirmation of predictions
Search for and challenge of confounding influences
I tend to start my challenges at the simplest level of things I can experience for myself, for example what has happened to my local glacier. Other examples of this are:
The temperature CO2 link:
When I was at school we had to carry out an experiment putting measured quantities of a yeast sugar mix into test tubes and sealing the tops with balloons. These tubes were then put into water baths at different temperatures and after a set time the size of the balloons was measured. Result, increasing temperature increases the rate of emission of CO2 from living organisms.
Challenge: If the global temperature is increased in some way there will be more CO2 generated increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is the CO2 driving the temperature or is the temperature driving the CO2?
The problem with mathematical models was highlighted to me by a college maths project that my daughter had to do a few years ago.
The background of the project was to develop an algorithm that could be used to control the times that street lighting was turned on and off through the year. They were given a table of the 'lighting up' times by week for a year from a city somewhere and a commercial graphing program. The students had to work out a formula without the graphing program and then use the program to produce a 'best fit' to the data set and see which gave the better result.
With a bit of understanding of the earth going round and orbiting the sun the students own formula was a SIN function with a few constants to get the correct values. The graphing program came up with a multiple order equation which fitted the data set very accurately but shot off to infinity outside of the range. The complicated equation actually fitted the data set slightly better than the SIN function but was completely meaningless as a predictor!
Challenge: How good is the model used to predict climate change? It will fit the current data set because that's what it's based on, but does it settle down to a regular pattern or fly off to infinity?
This gentlemen who is a quite respected scientist who has been involved in climate change work posted a similar view of complex mathematical models on another forum,
This was in response to a challenge to the forum by a supporter of man-made climate change. The rest of the tread is quite interesting.
Finally please do not assume meanings,
"You refer to 'what may well be bad science' in your post and go on to speculate about glacier retreat rates, concluding 'probably not'[due to man-made Climate Change]."
I am merely questioning if the current rates of retreat are outside the normal range of the last 10,000 years and as from your quote that the ice in the Ötztal alps has returned to the level it was at 5000 years ago I think that probably not is still a reasonable response.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This also applies to man-made climate change.
Remember read, observe, study, challenge don't just follow.