Global warming and anti-evolutionism

[Deamiter]

Interesting article with new data concerning the correlation of warming and carbon dioxide:
http://mises.org/story/2571

Interesting read. I can't say a blog like this is particularly convincing as we all know people can claim anything with little support, but if his claims were shown to be accurate (perhaps through a series of published journal articles?) it would certainly change the direction we need to take environmental care! Of course, he's not an expert in climate science, but that never stopped anybody from putting their 2 cents in!

I do disagree with the following however:

Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.

We're paying a tiny fraction of the cost it would take to reduce the amount of pollution we've been dumping into the environment since the industrial revolution. While his point about the climate would be spot on (assuming his claims were correct) the "enormous cost" would be neither enormous nor wasted as reducing pollution is beneficial to our economy on the long-term and the carbon reduction we've seen and promised is tiny compared to output.

 

[laptoppop]

For people who did not read the article yet -- yes, he was not a climatologist, but he certainly was working specifically in the field of global warming for the Australian government -- so he is not just a guy with an opinion either. Expert? I don't know -- but certainly more informed than me on the issue.

 

[plainswolf]

The recent thread on YECism and global warming in the creationist subforum (http://www.christianforums.com/t4743108-global-warming-creationist-view.html) prompts this new thread.

Increasingly, it seems to me that the creationist response to global warming is, "It's still cold here -- what a bunch of hooey!" It strikes me, though, that, like their position on anti-evolutionism, many creationists are misrepresenting what global warming says.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that the theory of global warming (perhaps more appropriately called 'climate change') does not purport a uniform increase in temperature across the globe. It says that the average tempature of the earth will rise in the coming years, with varying, non-uniform extremes in temperature occurring in localized settings. And yes, scientists do recognize the fluctuating climactic patterns as revealed by the rock record. They are the ones who developed the model (which extends back to the Palaeozoic) which creationists have now exapted to support a post-Flood ice age. But scientists also have their reasons for believing that the recent rise in global temperatures has been exacerbated by human activity.
For what it's worth, as little as a year ago, I also doubted humanity's effect on global warming. For one semester in 2005, I worked in a micropalaeontology lab that consistently yielded results denying human impact on climate, based on the distribution of foraminiferans in lake sediment cores. Take that for what you will, but the extreme weather in Canada this past winter has got me second-guessing. The unexpected blizzards along the west coast, the rediculously mild temperatures in Ottawa, and the southward migration of polar bears due to glacial melting is enough to make me question my presuppositions.
In fact, I'm a little surprised that more YECs aren't touting global warming as a sign of the end times, given that it is expect to lead to increased famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_and_agriculture).

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I don't see how the two equate really.. A fellow I work with is a self professed agnostic (and retired meteorologist) who is extremely skeptical of anthropocentric global warming.. But in view of an 'end times' type of perspective, again I don't see the two equating.. For that matter, I remember back in the 70's when there was the global cooling zeit geist...



+

 

[Deamiter]

Interesting article with new data concerning the correlation of warming and carbon dioxide:
http://mises.org/story/2571

For people who did not read the article yet -- yes, he was not a climatologist, but he certainly was working specifically in the field of global warming for the Australian government -- so he is not just a guy with an opinion either. Expert? I don't know -- but certainly more informed than me on the issue.

Austrian government actually

He's involved in statistical modeling of climate change if I'm not mistaken. I'm not trying to say he's wrong based on his credentials, but without detailed articles we're left to judge his claims on the merit of the author. I said the article was very interesting because it is -- it's certainly no dismissable climate-change-denier rant and he does note why he's come to the conclusions he mentions. I still think it's prudent to be wary of somebody who challenges the scientific consensus without bothering to publish the findings behind the challenge.

I also find it incredibly interesting that creationists like you (laptoppop) seem to go to great lengths to find and post blogs about how an individual rejected the scientific consensus. Given that none of us are experts on climatology, why should any of us have developed preconceived preferences for one view or another and go looking for fringe opinions rather than studying the basis for the larger scientific consensus? Is this related to a wider distrust of science that leads people to follow lawyers, writers and speakers (whatever their credentials) over those who spend 60 hours a week actually studying science? More importantly, is that an insulting question? I ask it honestly, but I know (from peaking into the creationist forum now and again) that honest questions can often be perceived as insulting and I'd honestly like to know if THIS is one of those so I can try to rephrase or avoid similar questions in the future.

 

[gluadys]

Another graph would be to chart the level of real action, which probably declines with cacophany, which is what this debate has become in the media. Millions will die from flooding and weather problems, whatver the cause, and much of that is preventible.

I think this is a commendable line of thought. Global warming, whatever the cause, is real and will have real human and environmental consequences. And we need to prepare for that. It has been reliably estimated that there will be up to 150 million refugees if global warming goes as high as predicted.

But current international law does not recognize environmental conditions as a legitimate identification of a person as a refugee to whom a nation must offer refuge. Only human rights violations are considered as demanding the right of refuge.

This is something Christians could take to their respective governments in order to prepare for the inevitable demand of asylum from environmental refugees.

Similarly, preparing for a fair distribution of food and medical aid as food production and disease control are disrupted are tasks to consider.

And none of this requires agreement on the precise cause of climate change--only on the fact that it is occurring and these are predictable consequences.

And whether or not governments act, Christians need to be considering their responses. Otherwise the all-to-human tendency to xenophobia will win out and we will exclude millions of people from the help they need.

 

[gluadys]

We're paying a tiny fraction of the cost it would take to reduce the amount of pollution we've been dumping into the environment since the industrial revolution. While his point about the climate would be spot on (assuming his claims were correct) the "enormous cost" would be neither enormous nor wasted as reducing pollution is beneficial to our economy on the long-term and the carbon reduction we've seen and promised is tiny compared to output.

Anyone who is raising the spectre of how much it will cost to deal with climate change is omitting both the huge costs of not dealing with climate change and the savings that result from increasing the efficient use of resources.

Currently, the Canadian forestry industry is losing money hand over fist to infestations of the pine beetle, an insect formerly confined to more southern latitudes by the harshness of our winters. This is only one small example of the huge economic dislocations that climate change will bring about.

 

[Deamiter]

Anyone who is raising the spectre of how much it will cost to deal with climate change is omitting both the huge costs of not dealing with climate change and the savings that result from increasing the efficient use of resources.

Currently, the Canadian forestry industry is losing money hand over fist to infestations of the pine beetle, an insect formerly confined to more southern latitudes by the harshness of our winters. This is only one small example of the huge economic dislocations that climate change will bring about.

Indeed! The recent report from the IPCC indicated that reducing our pollution that has been connected with climate change would cost a 0.12% reduction in growth of GDP per year. That's much MUCH less than we would lose with the environmental disruption of just a couple degrees of warming! Of course, it assumes that the majority of scientists are being honest and not simply fudging their data in rent-seeking, but then I don't generally buy into the conspiracy theories.

 

[laptoppop]

Austrian government actually

ouch. oops!

He's involved in statistical modeling of climate change if I'm not mistaken. I'm not trying to say he's wrong based on his credentials, but without detailed articles we're left to judge his claims on the merit of the author. I said the article was very interesting because it is -- it's certainly no dismissable climate-change-denier rant and he does note why he's come to the conclusions he mentions. I still think it's prudent to be wary of somebody who challenges the scientific consensus without bothering to publish the findings behind the challenge.

This was for popular consumption, not a scientific paper or article. I am NOT saying we should accept it, just that it seemed interesting.

I also find it incredibly interesting that creationists like you (laptoppop) seem to go to great lengths to find and post blogs about how an individual rejected the scientific consensus. Given that none of us are experts on climatology, why should any of us have developed preconceived preferences for one view or another and go looking for fringe opinions rather than studying the basis for the larger scientific consensus? Is this related to a wider distrust of science that leads people to follow lawyers, writers and speakers (whatever their credentials) over those who spend 60 hours a week actually studying science? More importantly, is that an insulting question? I ask it honestly, but I know (from peaking into the creationist forum now and again) that honest questions can often be perceived as insulting and I'd honestly like to know if THIS is one of those so I can try to rephrase or avoid similar questions in the future.

Its a bit of an interesting observation (although in general I flinch from statements that lump all creationists together). I'd leave out the part about "follow lawyers, writers and speakers". I don't follow anyone in particular. I just believe the Scriptural and physical evidence is in agreement and supports YEC better than anything else. In terms of the physical evidence, I look more to PhD YEC scientists than any popularist -- just as one might look more to credentialed evolutionists more than Isaac Asimov. Its very possible, that since we find ourselves questioning the general scientific consensus regarding evolution that we are more open to questioning any consensus and are more interested in some of the alternative viewpoints. On the other hand, is it not one of the traits of TEs that they tend to have individual opinions and vote "other" in most polls?

 

[busterdog]

It would seem that the reasonable course of action is to assume that global warming will not change and to deal with technologies to save people. China and India are not going Kyoto and the Sun seems to be cooking us anyway. Energy efficiency and clean technology is its own reward, regardless of its impact on global warming. That is a serious national security issue, if nothing else.


That being said, if the earth would freeze in a matter of hours without the sun, that would suggest an enormous amount of energy is being reflected back into space. Just a tiny bit of that would seem to be more than we can afford to retain. Would that not suggest that a very small change in greenhouse gases or less would have a significant impact on global warming?