Our assessments differ. I think that analysis of Milankovitch forcing by Berger and Loutre is valid, and therefore there isn't any reason to be concerned about a glacial period that is in the distant future.
Hyping global warming and very ill understood and ill based non-science is hardly conducive to achieving such goals, infact can be quite counter productive in terms of actually turning good science and good policy away for lack of credibility in the "Global Warming" alarmists camp.
Well, our viewpoints on the credibility of the science have always been quite different. But I think that the environmental arguments are less weighty than the energy and security concerns vis-a-vis the nation's energy infrastructure.
that concern I can share and work toward correcting such through utilization of real energy alternatives such as nuclear power taking the place of fossil fuel energy dependence. ... I wholly subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy should have been implemented yesterday, and lacking such having been done, it is all the more important to do so now to relieve our dependancing on foreign sources of fossil fuels which impact both our economy and security in our dependance of foreign souces."
Total agreement here. As you might guess, I also favor development of biofuels -- but to get to a more stable energy system, utilzing tar sands, oil shales, and other sources may be necessary.
Global Warming hype through the UN/IPCC however is not the way to achieve either of the above for the reasons stated
Within a decade -- I hope we'll still be discussing this -- we'll know with considerably more certainty if it's hype or not.
I think that analysis of Milankovitch forcing by Berger and Loutre is valid,
And I figure the more moderna and best assessment of Muller and others of Milankovitch's choice of eccentricty as opposed to orbital inclination to be the valid assessment. The choice of Milankovitch in chosing eccentricty as a factor appear to be rooted mainly in a coincidental period of operation near 100kyrs as opposed to more likely factors involved in orbital inclination modulating the incidence of meteoric dust and particles distributed about the solar system mean orbit with a much clearer and more consistant period of operation.
Dust answers more for cloud formation and a much larger effect than the small variations of incideant solar radiation due to variations in distance from the sun in changes in eccentricty that are even out of phase with the proported effects not to mention totally inadequate to explain observed correlations with solar activity as opposed to variations in solar irradiance.