I consider myself, (as one with a modest scientific background), as one with a great curiosity about the "Global Warming " debate.  As such I am inclined to read in full most of what becomes available including the text of Mr. Lawson's paper .  I found his perspective refreshing and honest.  The purpose of my writing here is not to criticize the Lawson paper but to ask of the climate intelligentsia why 2 certain elements of every discussion are stunningly absent or mentioned in passing from every document I have read on the subject.  To me if these two issues are not answered thoroughly then nothing in the debate is even worth discussing.

One:     How can it be that the planet has been warming on average since the last ice age some 20,000 years ago and that is nearly a post script in the discussion.  The experts speak of ocean level changes of 1/2 inch being critical over the next 100 years when in fact the sea level has changed by hundreds of feet in 20,000 years of on average constant warming with intermittent cooling.  Nearly all of that warming taking place while human kind as a species held on by a shoestring to existence on the planet.  Only in the last 200 years has significant progress been made in the real quality of life and then most of that taking place in the last 50 years.  Human kind had nothing to do with 99% of the time frame in that geologic snap shot and that is all but ignored.

Two:     There is NO definitive study that correlates atmospheric carbon dioxide to climate change over millennia much less anthropogenic CO2.  The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years and simultaneously the planet has warmed does not correlate the two issues.  My hair has grayed in that time period so I suppose I could conclude that anthropogenic CO2 increases caused that as well and thereby begin litigation against  GM for my gray hair.  Ohhh wait someone in California has as much as done such a stupid thing already to bring litigation against all of the US auto makers.

Someone needs to apply real science principles to scientific exploration. The scientific community needs to examine my queries (I cannot be the only one with such questions) and with peer review call me a nut.  I anxiously await being proved wrong with good science.

Craig Nelson