The design argument

The heavens declare the glory of God,/
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)

In essence this is straightforward. In everyday life it is apparent that many things are designed by men. We recognise design. And we know that designed objects have a designer. The parallel is that we see many other things that are not designed by men but are clearly designed.

We recognise design by purpose or intent. While a splatter painting may have been drawn by an artist there is no clear intent so whether or no it was designed is not clearly apparent. However the more intent something has the more clearly it was designed.

Information content is a helpful way of assessing design. The higher the information content the more obvious it is designed. Information is based on specification and complexity. So if something is ordered it is not particularly complex. If something is complex based on the number of bits to store it, it is may or may not be specified. So storing 100 addresses is specific, 100 random letters is not. A measure of information can be made by the the storage capacity required to hold the generator of the data. For a story it is the data (ie. every single letter, though thru lossless compression it may be possible to minimise information content) as a story is specified and not predictable. However large quantity data that is predictable (⅓ in decimal), calculable (π, e) or random has a low information content.

The issue with random numbers or noise needs more explanation. It is low information because describing a random number generator requires little information. To describe any single random number will require as much data as an equivalent length story. The reason this is not high information is that it lacks any specificity. The binary data that describes a jpeg picture may appear random but it is specific, it stores data about a specific object.

People don't perform these calculations rigorously but as information content ranges over multiple orders of magnitude design is easily recognised. A smoothed rock is easily distinguishable from a carving. We can tell a painting from spilled paint (usually). We know that a book has an author.

So it is clear that design can be seen even if the designer is not known. The existence of a designer can be inferred from design. So when one sees all the design in this world that is not from the hands of man the logical conclusion is that a designer exists and he is other than man. One may claim this designer is other than the Grand Designer; whether that be an angel, a lesser god of a pantheon, an extraterrestrial being. But whatever the immediate source, these beings are still creatures and the ultimate source must be the Creator.

The moral argument

Humans acknowledge they are moral beings. That is they have a sense of "ought" as C.S. Lewis put it. There is no denying that virtually every person has a sense that some things are right and some things are wrong. So there is a universal sense that morality is a real phenomenon. That is not to say all people have the same set of morals. While an innate sense that there is right and wrong exists, being fallen creatures we may not always recognise all that is truly right or wrong. We may so dull our senses that we struggle to hear our conscience. Or we may need clarity as to God's rules. There are persons who have a strong sense of obligation to conscience and they limit themselves from doing legitimate things for their conscience's sake. While this behaviour is still honourable it shows that sense of "ought" is not the same as the true "ought."

Scripture shows us what this true ought is and in societies where Christianity has not yet had significant influence the distinction between Christians and non-Christians in their approach to morality can be quite marked.

The general sense of ought in a person is a pointer to God. If God exists then there is the possibility for an objective morality; the objectiveness coming from God's character. It is objective because it is obligatory and applies to all men. The obligation comes because we are owned by God.

If God is non-existent then there can be no objectivity. There is no true obligation. There is nothing that allows us to say this is how it should be for all men. All is personal opinion and competing preferences. But a personal preference is not an "ought", it is preference. A preferred behaviour is the same as a preferred food or a favourite tie.

So without God how do we explain this universal trait? And even if an explanation is forthcoming it does not answer the question of why we should obey the "ought." If we recognise it as a quirk of nature then we are under no obligation to obey it, even if we can explain its reason for coming into existence. So without God, that is, without objectivity we realise that this is not true morality, it is merely an apparent morality. Something that confers survival value but it derives its importance from what it offers, not what it intrinsically is.

However this is not how we see morality. When we examine ourselves we know it is not a preference. In us there is a sense of objectivity. Not all moral codes are equal. Some choices really are better than others. We may argue morality is subjective in the abstract but when faced with certain behaviour it becomes clear that not all is equal. We appeal to some standard which must be external to us. By judging competing systems and claiming some systems are better than others we are appealing to objectivity. Objectivity can only come with a moral God.

• If there is no God then morality is subjective
• If there is a God then morality may be objective
• If morality is objective then there must be a God.

Should atheists still behave morally? Yes. Because morality is real there is a moral giver who has stated he will judge us. Atheists will be judged as will all men. Better they obey the sense of ought which they have no reason for than to be consistent with their (false) philosophy and glory in their shame.

Evidence for God

Romans introduces us to how general revelation can point people to God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (Romans 1:18-20)

What is the form of this revelation? His eternal power and divine nature. So there are things (perceived) in this world around us that point to attributes of God which in and of themselves are not visible.

What points to God's eternal power? Those things which may suggest to us God is powerful. The size of the earth, the stars of space, the creatures of this world. Creations that speak of design.

What points to God's divine nature? Those things in this world which reveal the image of God in creation. The behaviour on animals, the behaviour of humans, love, goodness, the hatred of murder and falsehood. Attributes that speak of morality.

I have left out the distortion of these due to the Fall as this is not of God's doing. So broken design and immoral actions while in existence may not point to God directly, though they may do indirectly.

Now there may be other aspects further than design and morality that Paul is alluding to here, but these seem to me to be the 2 that are enough to convince men about God. And while there may be many proofs of God's existence, it is possible that these 2 are the most powerful.

There is another reason to suspect that design and morality are the 2 classes of evidence that Paul is referring to, further in the passage Paul states the results of denying them. Romans continues

So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:20-25, 28-32)

In not acknowledging God people now sin in the areas that they deny. They reject design so they worship the designed rather than the designer and they reject morality so they act immorally but claim their actions are eumoral (morally good).

So it is possible the strongest evidence for God's existence and our obligation to him come from the existence of design and morality. These are not the only arguments that could be made for God's existence, but they are arguments that all have some appreciation of. The kalam argument (all effects need a cause) is a strong argument but it relies more heavily on philosophy and abstract logic; therefore it is less easily grasped by all people. Whereas we are forced to face the moral argument by our consciences daily, and design is apparent in many things of varying complexity which, again, we see daily.

And it is possible that the reality of design and objective morality are the aspects of the general revelation of God that is most attacked.

Random quote

Believing in Jesus counts for very little until belief becomes obedience

Trevor Geddes

Liar, liar

Lying is usually viewed as wrong and appropriately so. To call someone a liar is not a small undertaking and to do so falsely causes major damage and is a sin. However it is not enough that someone disagrees with you to think they are lying; opponents can be wrong without being dishonest.

We must not confuse a person's opinion of reality with distortion of what they know.

Ultimate truth is what conforms to reality. Falsehood is what does not. But to pass off what one thinks is reality when it is not reality is not the same as distorting what one knows to be the case.

There are 4 scenarios

1. Agreeing with reality and saying so
2. Agreeing with reality and saying other
3. Disagreeing with reality and saying so
4. Disagreeing with reality and saying other

Scenario 1 is truth telling, scenario 2 is lying, but what of scenarios 3 and 4?

The problem is we have disagreements over what reality is. Differing opinions may be related to arguing at cross purposes or real disagreement. If the opinions are incompatible it may be that both persons are wrong, but if one of them is correct, logically the other must be incorrect. The person arguing for the incorrect position corresponds to scenario 3. To call that person a liar is, in fact, not correct. The difficulty is the argument is over which position is correct. Calling the other person a liar at least implies that one is certain they are correct (they may be, but this misses the point there is disagreement); it may also imply the other person is misrepresenting what they know to be true, whereas they may actually believe their incorrect position.

So to prove someone a liar one needs to demonstrate the person is aware of some fact that contradicts their position and they were hiding this knowledge to suit their purposes.

This is important. Calling someone a liar seems to be yet another common way of refusing to debate the issues. It is really a form of equivocation: someone claims that not being in agreement with the facts (scenario 3) is as an adequate definition of liar, but in tarring someone as a liar suggests they are in the position of misrepresenting what they know to be true (scenario 2), and it is this (the implied scenario not the actual one) which is seen as a moral failure. Whether lying is ever acceptable is another topic.

And what of scenario 4, being in the position of telling what you think is a lie but in actuality corresponds to reality. Well that still makes you a liar, however if people act on your lies it is likely to result in less damage to society than scenario 2 (and perhaps scenario 3).

Random quote

God: You can't mess with free will.
Bruce: Can I ask why?
God: Yes you can, that's the beauty of it!

Bruce Almighty

Summary of Scam of the Great Global Warming Swindle

It is interesting what Merchant didn't critique. The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapour and we really don't have a handle on that. This means I am less interested in the models than the global warming proponents are. T.J. Nelson has some comments on the validity of modelling assumptions, including on the thermal runaway effect.

A lot of what Merchant critiques the program for his own camp has done in ways far more dramatic and sinister. I don't blame him for this personally, but it would be good to acknowledge that the pro-global warming camp has much shonky behaviour and poor science presentation to repent of. Sort of removing the log from your own eye.

I find it interesting that someone whose presentation includes revealing fallacies, at times doesn't understand them fully and at other times engages in them.

I think that some of Merchant's comments are not so much showing up the errors of the program, rather he is judging it from his viewpoint: that anthropomorphic global warming is true; and therefore he slams them for dishonesty when it is merely the difference of opinion over the competing theories. Your opponent is dishonest when he misrepresents data, he is not dishonest because he believes an alternative theory—even if he is incorrect!

It would be beneficial to the debate if the Great Global Warming Swindle had more exposure. If they had the motivation it would be useful for the producers to review Merchant's critiques and modify the program so that any of his valid ones are addressed and areas of possible misinterpretation are discussed with more clarity.

What is the context?

Merchant claims the Swindle documentary appeals to authority and lack of context. Slide 27

How the GGWS persuades

• Powerful, professional, polemical
• Half-truths
• False dichotomy
• Selective (distorted?) data
• Ad hominem attack
• Appeals to authority
• Quoting out of context

While true lack of context is a problem as is appeal to authority, mostly the program doesn't do this. In terms of appeal to authority, the program does have scientists on it but it goes on to explain why the things it is claiming to be true are true. Appeal to authority is, "Professor X said this so it is true." The program explained what and why and how. Interviewing scientists is not appeal to authority unless it leaves it at that, which it doesn't.

As opposed to the global warming proponents who say things like, "All scientists now agree so we don't need to discuss it" which is a form of this fallacy.

Context means everything. And a quote out of context can have a completely different meaning. There have been some concerns raised by Carl Wunsch that what he said was used out of context.

But Merchant has to give examples. Blaming lack of context is a easy way to disparage your opponent. I disregard his comment unless he gives examples so I can assess whether the context was adequately addressed.

People who are quoted in a medium that opposes their overall viewpoint don't like this; but if what they think on a particular issue is used in context, that is, not out of context, they are being used as a hostile witness—this is acceptable.

I do think it is gentlemanly when quoting your opponent to make it clear what their belief is. Creationists quote evolutionists to show up evolution, but they don't (or shouldn't) imply the person is a creationist. But then why would you? an argument appears very persuasive when believed by your opponents!

What motivates who?

The Great Global Warming Swindle claims that some anthropomorphic global warming proponents have a fiscal interest in the results of their science. Merchant's summary and counter-argument in slide 26

In in for the money

• Propositions:
• The research funding for "global warming" has increased greatly.
• Implication:
• Scientists want to perpetuate a myth to maintain their funding.
• Fallacy: ad hominem (circumstantiae)

It is true that the evidence needs to be evaluated on its own merits (though I don't see a lack of claims about oil companies funding anti-global warming research).

It is also true that money is a motivation. And it can have subtle (and not so subtle) effects on people.

But what he doesn't mention is how the type of funding can affect research. There is a difference between funding directed at what affects the weather/ climate and funding that is directed to look at man's contribution to climate and funding that is directed at human caused global warming. If your funding is to find an answer then people (being fallen) have at least some motivation to find what they have been asked to. The pressures can be significant, funding can be non-existent elsewhere, and scientific fraud (in many areas) has been well documented. Not to mention the desire to make a name for oneself.

So money can be a motivation, but both sides must evaluate the data. It is too easy to dismiss your opponents by calling into question their motivation, it is more difficult to debate the science. Do not let an opponents lack of integrity be a cause for yours.

The sun as a cause of climate change

Merchant mocked a sun specialist's prediction about December and January being cold (implying this is simple to do given that the period was during winter). But, from memory, he was predicting a colder winder whereas the majority were predicting a warmer winter.

Slides 20 thru 24 show graphs of temperature versus time. This is compared with normalized "solar activity" from data Merchant has obtained. The time scale is from 1860 to 2000 but with data only to 1980 as per the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Slide 20 shows the raw annual data. Slide 21 shows data smoothed over 11 years. Slide 22 shifts the early part of the graph leftward (earlier). Slide 23 shows the data distorted by filling in the gap in slide 22. Slide 24 is the smoothed data of slide 21 but thru to 2000.

Smoothing is a valid procedure so long it doesn't show something contradictory from the unsmoothed data. If one wishes to show trends then some types of data will need to be smoothed. All data has some smoothing (though in a slightly different way). If you present monthly temperatures they are averaged daily temperatures (a smoothing phenomenon). The smoothing done here is more than using a different time division (day versus month), it is taking in to account data either side so 11 year smoothing is taking the year plus the five years either side and averaged while presenting the data in yearly divisions.

Slide 25

Massage?

• Convincing apparent correlation of solar activity and global temperature
• But
• Has data been manipulated
• Data shown stop at 1980 .. when any correlation dramatically breaks down
• Method of persuasion:
• Selective use of data

This is a serious charge. If they have manipulated their data, that is unacceptable and it would be helpful for the presenters to be clearer on the source data. However it seems that Merchant has misunderstood the source data as he now acknowledges.

Not showing data further than 1980 is not honest if there is a difference. The presenters should have shown it. But this doesn't disprove their theory; Merchant came up with an auxiliary theory (particulate matter) for the unexpected cooling, the solar advocates may have an auxiliary theory.

It is interesting he condemns the solar data for misrepresentation, yet how long was the hockey stick graph used? and how many people did it influence? and how much is it still used? despite its validity now being questioned by proponents and opponents.

Further, the sun hypothesis is just another theory to explain warming. It untrue it does not affect the critiques of global warming.

Now scientists are suggesting global warming on Mars; this gives the sun hypothesis increased credibility if one subscribes to Ockham's razor.

What potential effect could man be having on global temperatures?

The mean global temperature is ~14 °C which is 287 K. The increase in the earth's temperature due to the greenhouse effect is thought to be about 33 °C (= 33 K).

The contribution to the greenhouse effect by water including water vapour and clouds is probably 80-90%; CO₂ 5-10%; and other gases 5-10%.

The annual production of CO₂ from all sources is estimated at 200 Gtonnes. Man's input is about 7 Gtonnes. I have graphed this to show visually man's role.

What to make of the climate models?

The Great Global Warming Swindle is suspicious of the climate models. Merchant sums up their argument in slide 17 then gives his response

Climate models are useless

• Proposition:
• Climate models require many uncertain parameters, that can be "tweaked"
• Implication
• Climate modellers choose parameters that given them the results they want
• This is wrong because:
• Modellers impose various limits on what parameters are valid

Here Merchant seeks to justify the models. Fair enough. But all the program's criticisms of models are valid.

I think it is interesting that there is no adequate validation of the models. They are tweaked to make them fit the data. I don't object to this. But I don't see the tweaking as proof, I see subsequent data fitting the models (without further tweaking) as the beginnings of proof.

Slide 18

Model parameters

• Parameters in models often based on fundamental physics, chemistry etc
• Other parameters are tightly constrained by observations of the real system
• Parameters that are poorly constrained may be check via their effects

Slide 19

Valid models

• Sets of (uncertain) parameters can interact to give unreasonable models
• These are eliminated by requiring models used for prediction to be able to simulate
• A sensible stable climate like the present (constant forcing, realistic variability)
• The changes in response to forcing during the 20th C (within reasonable errors)

This is a major problem with this sort of science. Science is either observational or historical. This is a fundamental idea of the philosophy of science. Unfortunately it is poorly known, though relatively easy to understand. The 2 may be mixed, that is have features of both. The basic concept is:

• Performing repeatable experiments is observational science
• Reconstructing previous events is historical science

So one is limited in being able to prove historical science because of the nature of it being non-repeatable. This is not a failing, rather an intrinsic limitation of it. Modelling historical climate (even as recently as the near present) falls mostly under historical science. That means that in order for the models to be accepted they must be validated. One can validate by working with some of the data and checking it with the rest of the data. But if all the data is used, or the models are adjusted with subsequent data then the theory remains unvalidated. Observational data is validated but differently; and it is gives more definitive results as anyone can potentially repeat the experiment over.

Note Merchant does not mention water vapour in the variables of the models. This may be an oversight in the presentation but water is very important—the most important.

He says that modellers try to have realistic assumptions. Yes, but they are assumptions. And if you believe in global warming and your models predict this you are likely to think your assumptions are good.

He dismisses radiation by saying this can be accounted by a few assumptions. But that is the debate is it not? I could say the same about CO₂ . In fact CO₂ should be easier as one just allows for a slow increase, whereas radiation is less predictable.

How about minimising assumptions, stating them clearly, then validating your model.

He showed earlier models on slides 8 thru 10. These had actual temperature and predicted temperature versus time for 1850 to 2000. The first was natural climate forcing: solar and volcanic; the second was anthropogenic forcing : green house gas and sulphate aerosol; the third was both natural and anthropogenic factors.

These models are just too accurate (for something as difficult as climate). Clearly the parameters have been tweaked to get this. This is okay, but it is not proof. It is a model, follow the model for some years and see if it continues to be true. While you are waiting for this, you have not proven anything, nor can you expect people to change behaviour based on your model. (Never mind that the idea that one can be so certain of the distinction of natural CO₂ versus man-made CO₂ is just too absurd).

And the models have not predicted accurately. There is now a lot of talk about Arctic ice-melting. Could this be because the temperatures have not been as high as predicted for the last few years so they lessen the discussion on the temperature and start discussing some effect they claim is related to it?

Ice-core data

I do not believe in the ice-core data so this is a little bit null for me. Nevertheless I will interact with Merchant's logic. Slide 13

The ice-core record

• Their argument:
• CO2 and T clearly linked in the ice core record
• Either CO₂ is driving a change in T, or T is driving a change in CO₂
• Since, at the end of glaciations, T increases first, T must drive CO₂
• Further implication
• Since CO₂ didn't drive temperature change in the past, it won't do so now

Slide 14

False dichotomy

• T drive CO₂ or vice versa
• No! The driver is the variation in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
• T and CO₂ respond to this driver, T first
• Third possibility: feedback relationship
• Does not follow CO₂ has no effect on T
• ~Half T change from CO₂ feedback

Merchant states that both temperature and CO₂ are driven by orbit changes. But this statement is a tacit agreement that Gore's proof is invalid. The program's point does not prove that CO₂ can't drive temperature and I'm not sure this is what the presenters are saying. What they are saying is that Gore's chief proof is not true because the temperature changes precede the CO₂ changes and do not follow it. One can go with the program or with the Merchant but either way, both show Gore's presentation to be a logically invalid argument.

He states this doesn't necessarily prove CO₂ is not important now (I agree). But if your major proof is shown to be invalid you can no longer rely on it.

Further, in terms of logic disproving A does not prove B (unless B equals not A), but it may support it.

His option C is just a story. Stories can be true or untrue, but coming up with a plausible explanation allows for a scenario, it does not prove it. Frankly, causes of repeat ice-ages just are not understood. I think there is evidence for a single ice-age which, in some ways, we are still coming out of.

Slide 15

No guide to future performance

• CO₂ did not "drive" T in the last 600kyr
• CO₂ still affected T (greenhouse effect)
• We are now changing CO₂ directly, independently of T
• In this (completely different) forced situation, CO₂ changes can (and will) "drive T changes

Line 3 does not follow, just because we are producing CO₂ does not mean we are changing the amounts in the atmosphere significantly. And the argument that CO₂ is forcing the change in T rather than responding to the change in CO₂ is an assumption.

Changes in gases in the atmosphere are considered to follow or force temperature. Following temperature means that the amounts in the atmosphere are a reflection of the temperature of the atmosphere. Forcing temperature means that the gases are changing the temperature of the atmosphere. A gas can potentially follow, force or do both. Asserting which is based on theory as much (or more so than) as data. Water vapour and clouds have a far greater effect on greenhouse effect but the proponents of anthropomorphic global warming suggest that ongoing changes of water follow rather than force. This allows them to effectively ignore a potentially larger cause.

Slide 16

Ice cores not fundamental

• The T and CO₂ inter-relationship in the ice cores is not the main theory under-pinning global warming
• The fundamental theory is the physics of the greenhouse effect, dating back to Faraday, Tyndall and Arhennius in the 19th century

Well maybe someone should tell Al Gore this!

Does small equal unimportant or small?

Slide 11 in Merchant's presentation

Small = Unimportant

• Proposition: Because CO₂ is less than 0.05% of the atmosphere, we shouldn't believe it is important
• Strychnine in the human body at 0.05% concentrations can be fatal

No, small equals less important than large. To improve the analogy, if I wiped cyanide on someone's clothes and someone else gave them a salad with a cup of cyanide in it, it is unlikely my contribution significantly lead to his death, as alone it may have made him slightly sick. Another example would be someone poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide from exhaust fumes while smoking cigarettes; the amount of CO gained while smoking is not enough to kill anyone but the amount in car exhaust is. For someone who, in his presentation, has concentrated on logical fallacies, this is unacceptable misrepresentation.

Opponents of the global warming agenda acknowledge that atmospheric CO₂ contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Slide 12

CO₂ insignificant

• Proposition:
• Human emissions of CO₂ ~ 2% of the natural sources
• This is technically accurate
• Inference we are meant to draw:
• Our CO₂ emissions can't matter
• Fallacy:
• Ignores natural sinks that absorb all the natural emissions (and half the extra human emissions)
• Ignores cumulative effect of small imbalance: CO₂ has risen from ~280 to ~380 ppmv

The program is not saying that the amount of human produced CO₂ is intrinsically small so it unimportant, they are saying that the human contribution is a small part of a small part. More importantly I would add that our contribution is smaller than the natural variation! If what we are putting into the atmosphere is less than the natural variation from year to year how can one say that the man-made is to blame and not the natural. The CO₂ produced by us or "naturally" is the same chemical.

Why can't natural sinks take up human produced CO₂? It is not like they can tell the difference.

The program does not deny that CO₂ levels are rising (as Merchant implies), just the cause. He makes the mistake that he knows the cause of the increase, but that is what the debate is about: correlation does not imply causation.

Is the warming happening at the wrong time?

Slide 7

20th C warming happened at the wrong time

• Proposition:
• Global temperature should have started rising from 1940 when CO₂ levels started rising significantly
• Inference we are meant to draw:
• Because it didn't do so the theory is wrong
• Proposition is invalid because:
• Implies (falsely) that CO₂ should be the only driver of climate
• No single factor controls the temperature--solar variations, volcanic eruptions, & industrial aerosols all matter
• Thermal inertia of oceans implies it takes decades to respond fully to changes in CO₂

Sorry, but the raw data still says that the warming happened in the wrong time in the 20th century compared to prediction. Now Merchant can come up with accessory hypotheses like aerosols and that is completely permissible. But the accessory hypothesis is used to salvage the theory. All he has proven is that his favoured theory has not been totally discredited because there are further sub-theories. But a theory that is able to be salvaged is not automatically the correct theory, it just may be. There is a difference between a theory being able to explain data and the data being proof for a theory. For data to be proof there needs to be a prediction that is confirmed by subsequent investigation. I will talk more about this in the modelling discussion.

It is interesting that the global warming fanatics don't ask us to start burning fossil fuel in a dirty manner again (to increase aerosols) until alternative fuel sources become adequate! (Actually this has been proposed by one man). But if Merchant really believes it is aerosols that lead to cooling maybe he should be an advocate for this.

He is correct about the delays in the change in global temperature but we certainly wouldn't expect a decrease in temperature as a result of CO₂ if the global warming theory is true.