My last post, the first of a short series on the climate change debate, generated a little debate of its own. Not here, but on Facebook. Before I go on to the next post in the series, I’ll clarify a couple of points. That’s easier than going on to the next post and, given that I’m dead tired today after three busy weeks with almost no break, I’m glad for this diversion.

I am NOT saying that climate change is occurring devoid of man-induced causes. In fact, I’m saying just the opposite. It’s clear to me that mankind is doing things to put heat into the world. To me that’s intuitively obvious without a lot of reasoning or studies.

What I’m saying is that the climate is changing as a result of a combination of man-induced causes and natural causes. Or rather, the observed changes MAY BE the result of a combination man-induced and natural causes. I am not, at this stage in my studies, convinced that scientists have studied all possible natural contributors to climate change and ruled them out. In my last post I mentioned two natural contributors that come to my mind for which I’ve looked for refuting data/studies and can find none: volcanic activity and gradual slowing of the earth’s rotation. As I stated in my last post, I could find nothing on those two possible causes.

Why can’t I find that? Perhaps the one doing the searching is deficient in researching abilities. Maybe the studies and data are out there, posted or referred to on the internet, and my searches just haven’t found them. That’s entirely possible. But is it also possible that those studies haven’t been done? If not, why not?

It has been suggested that scientists have no agenda. That they are without the natural human trait of having beliefs and coming to conclusions before they have completed all needed studies. I reject that. Scientists are just like the rest of us and can base their work on false premises resulting in false conclusions. They are not more “pure,” if that’s the right word, in their motives.

In a couple of future posts, I will further explain why these two possible natural factors and why I wonder if they are contributing to climate change. I’ll also add a couple of other factors I’m wondering about. Given my Monday and Friday posting schedule, this will take several weeks to play out.

My prior studies have shown that some possible natural factors do not seem to be contributing to climate change, something I planned to discuss later in the series. One of those was the wobble in the earth’s rotational axis. In fact, the current direction of that wobble would suggest that the earth should be cooling slightly. Another is the earth’s elliptical orbit, which also seems to not be a contributor to the warming observed in the earth.

A cousin provided a link to an article from the University of Cambridge, England, which discusses volcanic activity in relation to climate change. I’ve opened the article but have not yet read it. I note that it was published 12 August 2021, which was a couple of years after my studies. I’m glad to see this, and will read it as soon as I catch up from my three weeks of extreme busyness. The same for the other linked article, which was published Feb 27, 2020, also after I did my searching. I had, however, seen a similar discussion in an earlier article and learned what the scientists had concluded about these two possible natural causes.

So, it’s good to know about this article on volcanic activity and that someone else has thought about this. I don’t like the term “shaming” to describe my thoughts on this. When you can’t find any scientific discussion about what you think is important, you naturally wonder if you are alone in your thinking. That’s not shaming. And I hate that buzzword—as I hate most buzzwords.

Friday, if all goes well this week, I’ll bring up why I first began to wonder about volcanic activity, and hopefully will be able to summarize what the U of C article has to say on the subject. Depends on how much catching up I get done.