Global warming as a Christian social concern?

[eclipsenow]

Hi all,
I'm vastly persuaded by the writing of Sydney's Dr Andrew Cameron, the Moore College lecturer in ethics. (The Anglican bible college).

He wrote a piece I love called "How sceptical is too sceptical?"
#63 Climate change part 3: How sceptical is too sceptical? | Apologetics | Sydneyanglicans.net

quote below... But before I get there, I just wanted to comment that only the gospel can change people to live the kind of lives that will help this civilisation we have survive and transform and prosper through the coming challenges. If we turn to paranoid self-interest as nations, we could end up nuking each other back to the stone age!

****

In a recent public seminar at the University of NSW, Dr Scott Power (Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre) described these reports as ‘magnificent’. A lead author in the “Impacts” report, Mr Kevin Hennessy (Climate Impacts and Risk Group, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research Centre), described the four-year process behind the report he was involved in. The first three of four successive drafts are reviewed by forty expert review editors; the last two of the four drafts are also reviewed by governments. Over 2000 comments were received from governments and scientists, and IPCC responses to these comments are transparent and traceable. Hennessy described this process of review as one of the most comprehensive in the world.


How much scepticism is too much scepticism? We face this problem in every area of life, from whether or not we can trust our work colleagues, to whether our loved ones really love us and whether Christian faith is really true. Too little scepticism is gullible, but there comes a time when too much scepticism is a crippling disconnection from reality.



Humans can be wrong: maybe the problem has been overstated. That is unlikely in the case of the IPCC, which is an inherently conservative body whose processes have the effect of stripping out all but the most agreed-upon claims. But if it turns out that a false alarm has sounded, have we done wrong to respond to an alarm? Of course not; only fools ignore alarms. When an alarm turns out to be false, we may roll our eyes; yet the wise continue to sound alarms and respond. Holdren’s position therefore sums up the SIE’s current view. An alarm has been sounded, and it is prudent to trust those sounding it and work with them.



One more point is worth adding. Human induced climate change is sad, and there is a place for feeling that sadness. But the best response to this sadness is not denial, but to humbly remember the sovereignty of the God who still loves His world and who regularly helps people to solve the messes we make. Even if humanity’s excesses are changing the climate, we may still be people of quiet confidence and hope.

 

[GarrickBrewer]

Well i will quote a person from my church when there was a conversation about global warming " I am just banking on the rapture happening in the next 5-15 years"

 

[99percentatheism]

How interesting that as the leftist goals to implement authoritarian socialism worldwide has been dimished by free market captaism, the hysteria of "global warming" comes along to refuel the engine of the leftist totalitarians dreams and aspirations to rule over earth.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Global warming is a global warning from God for those who believe.

Jesus compared his coming to the summer that draws near.

And we know when summer draws near, things will heat up if you hear what the Lord is saying.

Did man have a part in his own demise? Absolutely. Both spiritually, and physically.

For the Lord has promised; "I will destroy those who destroy my earth."

 

[radennis0]

We are stewards of God's Earth, no doubt. However, I am skeptical about the global alarmists agenda. There are certain people who stand to profit from global warming (or is it global climate change now?). Governments stand to gain even more control over civilians thru climate legislation. In the simplest terms, the temperatures of the Earth do vary over time, and there is evidence that it has happened prior to the industrial age. Certain academics and IPCC members ignored this data set in order to advance their agenda.

So, healthy skepticism is necessary so that we are not taken advantage of. Otherwise, a normal common sense "give-a-hoot" mindset is all that is really needed.

 

[Niemander]

^

Notwithstanding the "science" of global warming has been proven a hoax...

 

[imind]

^

Notwithstanding the "science" of global warming has been proven a hoax...

lol...it most certainly has not. it remains the only theory to account for the data.

We are stewards of God's Earth, no doubt. However, I am skeptical about the global alarmists agenda. There are certain people who stand to profit from global warming (or is it global climate change now?). Governments stand to gain even more control over civilians thru climate legislation. In the simplest terms, the temperatures of the Earth do vary over time, and there is evidence that it has happened prior to the industrial age. Certain academics and IPCC members ignored this data set in order to advance their agenda.

So, healthy skepticism is necessary so that we are not taken advantage of. Otherwise, a normal common sense "give-a-hoot" mindset is all that is really needed.

the science and politics of global warming can should be seperable. the scientific evidence is there and shouldn't be ignored simply b/c someone stands to profit from it in one way or another.

 

[Stan Ley]

A lot data can be misused. Lets take a look at a section of the Al Gores doco, An Inconvenient Truth. In the movie Gore puts too charts up of data taken from ice core samples, one with global temperatures over the centuries, the other CO2 levels taken from the same period. Looking at them you can see the correlation between the two charts and he calls it a no brainer. What he doesn’t do is put one chart on the other. When you do this however you can see the CO2 increases follow the temperature increases over time. In fact it is about a 800 year lag. One would conclude from this it is the rising temperatures causing CO2 levels to rise not the other way round. This is just one example of misused data.

If you want an end result of man made global warming it's not hard to find data to get to that conclusion. This is what the IPCC has been exposed of doing at East Anglia

 

[maccadonn]

the science and politics of global warming can should be seperable. the scientific evidence is there and shouldn't be ignored simply b/c someone stands to profit from it in one way or another.

Of course science shouldn't be ignored because of possibly questionable motives. Truth is truth. The issue being raised, though, I think has more to do with a worry that the science itself has become compromised because of it becoming politicized. In other words, it becomes harder to trust the presented data the more one believes the data is being offered by people who are agenda driven rather than purely 'truth driven' for it's own sake, so to speak. In other words, for example, who knows what contrary data they may have left out because it may contradict their desired conclusions? There are so many variables, and there is no doubt that the money and power involved with reorganizing the western world's economies is immense! (I believe other things are involved as well, which have to do with human nature and which point to the mystery of why it disproportionately secular people of a leftist persuasion that believe it so unreservedly.)

 

[NNSV]

Below is my comment on Global warming from a similar thread. In my opinion, there is not enough skepticism in the scientific community, because too many people believe scientists over their own minds. It is incredibly disheartening to see the so-called "layman" abdicate his/her intellectual freedom and drive to assumed experts; everyone was a "layman" at some point in their life. We are all human.

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meat of the global warming argument is that humans are responsible for the more rapid increase in global temperature. The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, but what Global Warming scientists insinuate is that humans - especially humans in the post-industrial world - have contributed to the increase of the world temperature by expelling exorbitant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus causing a greenhouse effect on the earth. Some scientists also explain that the phenomenon is cause by an increase in Methane (CH4), and Ozone (O3).
However, carbon dioxide (CO2) is PLANT FOOD, and that when plants are fed well (with sunlight, water and CO2,) they EXPELL O2 as waste (like farts,) which humans/animals need for respiration. It is called cellular respiration.

Secondly, all humans expel gas (CH4), and volcanic hot spots also expel this gas. CH4 has a root-mean-square velocity twice that of CO2, which means CH4 escapes higher into the atmosphere, and is therefore suceptible to breaking up into chemical pieces by ionizing cosmic radiation like UV and X-rays.

Moreover, if O3 is increasing, our skies should be bluer, and the earth should be more protected from the ionizing effects of cosmic radiation. Coppertone, and other sun-screen products would slowly go out of business because we would be restoring and fortifying our own natural sunblock. The chemical process of Ozone is

O2 + UV photon ---> O + O
O2 + 2O --->O3
_________________________
3O2 + UV photon ---> 2O3


These "global warming" gases are capable of chemical, chiral and transmutation changes by means of ionizing radiation from the cosmos. Global warming simply lumps these gases together as "dangerous" without accounting for earth and cosmological processes, because they assume the "layman" will believe everything they say.


World governments want to charge every single human with a carbon footprint tax (the "green tax") to alleviate the warming problem, when in reality there are too many mechanisms on earth for humans to cause a warming change as rapid as scientists suggest. Too many. A few to name is the earth's rotation, pressure systems, life systems (humans, animal and plant life,) solar and cosmic radiation, tidal forces, the jet stream, and oceanic absorption. These processes are there to balance out and neutralize offensive forces on the earth, like "an excess of CO2 gas." Ice ages and warming periods are sinusoidally periodic - meaning they happen cyclically at some magnitude (or amplitude).

As much damage as we are doing to the earth, we are not affecting the earth on a global scale in terms of climate. What scientists wont tell you is that the only thing great enough to affect the climate of the earth is (1) the sun, and (2) the core processes of the earth.

By the way, anyone remember the hacker expose revealing emails that scientists "massaged" Global warming data?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ture-data.html

I mean... I hope people realize scientists can lie too, and most often have to "massage" results because their money for research either comes from government interest (~30%), or private industry (~60%).

Science has gone from philosophy to a representative politico for "truth."

 

[eclipsenow]

@ Stan Ley

A lot data can be misused. Lets take a look at a section of the Al Gores doco, An Inconvenient Truth. In the movie Gore puts too charts up of data taken from ice core samples, one with global temperatures over the centuries, the other CO2 levels taken from the same period. Looking at them you can see the correlation between the two charts and he calls it a no brainer. What he doesn’t do is put one chart on the other. When you do this however you can see the CO2 increases follow the temperature increases over time. In fact it is about a 800 year lag. One would conclude from this it is the rising temperatures causing CO2 levels to rise not the other way round. This is just one example of misused data.

That was a VERY unfortunate moment for Al Gore's presentation and completely misrepresented the basis for global warming science. Fortunately for the credibility of climate science, the climatologists were explaining that the Milankovitch cycles were the trigger in those ice ages, causing temperature changes that THEN caused Co2 feedbacks to occur. Yes, even James Hansen has admitted this — and BEFORE Al Gore's movie. What Al Gore may have — superficially — been insinuating is that Co2 acted as a positive feedback in these cycles. Milankovitch "wobbles" in the Earth's orbit were the trigger, but Co2 was most definitely an extra bit of gunpowder in the equation.

But none of this in any way proves climate science false — any good climate scientist can tell you all about these things. Climate science covers many areas and many climate forcings, and greenhouse gases are only one of those forcings. Any Denialist that tries to pretend otherwise is only setting up a superficial strawman of their own fevered imagination!

Global warming was always based on the physics of how Co2 interacts with long-wave-length energy. It's repeatable, demonstrable, verifiable, provable spectrometry that can be done in any decent lab on the planet. Which might just be why every decent National Academy of Science on the planet has signed on to support AGW! (Even the privately funded ones as well!)

As a more technically informed contact explained it to me:
———

The simple answer is we know the absorption spectra of CO2 because we can measure it directly, unambiguously and very accurately.

The measurement is conceptually very simple – shine a light source of a given wavelength through a sample of CO2 gas in a glass box, and measure the decrease in intensity of the light that passes through. The difference between what goes in and what comes out is the absorption, at that particular wavelength. If you measure the absorption for a range of wavelengths – say from infrared through to ultraviolet, thats the absorption spectrum. If you know the dimensions of the box, and the density of the gas, you can then calculate the absorption per molecule, or mole, or whatever. You can then use that to calculate the absorption through any amount of CO2, say, that in the atmosphere above us.

Look up Beer’s Law on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law

In the old days we would have used a single wavelength spectrometer, which would split light through a prism and slit arrangement to select a single wavelength. A more modern instrument is the FTIR – Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy – which illuminates with all wavelengths at once and uses fourier analysis to back out the spectrum. But the spectrum of CO2 is a bit like the boiling point of water. It was established a very long time ago, and if you need it, you look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

Yes there are many natural variations in short term climate. El Nino and La Nina, the ENSO cycle, all these are like waves in a bath. Adding Co2 to the atmosphere is like we've left the tap on in that bath.

And Christians have a responsibility to sort it out and care for this creation. It's the only planet we can live on (given today's technology at least).

 

[eclipsenow]

@ MNSV
1. Co2 = plant food
You sound like you're singing from the Denialist hymn book there.

However, carbon dioxide (CO2) is PLANT FOOD, and that when plants are fed well (with sunlight, water and CO2,) they EXPELL O2 as waste (like farts,) which humans/animals need for respiration. It is called cellular respiration.

Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!”

We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Plants are also vulnerable to various problems if they get too much 'plant food'. It messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.
The “CO2 is Good for Plants” Crock. Turns out — not so much. « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.
How plants respond to increasing carbon dioxide - Science Show - 3 July 2010

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased famines and floods.

Trying to insinuate that Co2 can't change the climate because it is 'natural' and we exhale it and plants need it, well, that's as disingenuous as arguing water cannot hurt people because it is natural. Indeed, we need to DRINK it or we die! So therefore Tsunamis and floods can't kill people? Um.... someone join those dots for me again?
2. Methane is a greenhouse gas

Secondly, all humans expel gas (CH4), and volcanic hot spots also expel this gas. CH4 has a root-mean-square velocity twice that of CO2, which means CH4 escapes higher into the atmosphere, and is therefore suceptible to breaking up into chemical pieces by ionizing cosmic radiation like UV and X-rays.

What ... are you trying to tell us that methane eventually breaks down? I'm not even a scientist but can tell you're trying to baffle lay people like myself with big equations. What has that got to do with the conversation? Of COURSE it breaks down! And that's completely irrelevant. The climatologists (surprise surprise) KNOW that. They explain that if it didn't break down, and had the same lifetime as Co2 in the atmosphere, it would be 70 times stronger as a Greenhouse gas. But fortunately it has a shorter life, and so is only about 21 times worse than Co2.

Interesting little diversion, but what's it got to DO with anything?

3. Conspiracy theories
Sorry, but I just don't buy all the conspiracy theories. Science is too cut throat, and too competitive. Believe me, it's just human nature. If they could disprove it they would. Imagine being a young climatologist — the temptation to go looking for proof against it would be very strong. Disproving it for REAL in the peer-reviewed (not looney tunes) science literature would not only make their career, it would assure their place in history.

There's a conspiracy theory to paint the Left as needing a new cause since the USSR collapsed, that the Left just picked up climate change as their new champion. That's rubbish. It's almost exactly the wrong way around from what has actually occurred over the last few decades.

Dr Namoi Oreskes revealed to Australian Broadcasting Corporation in an hour long speech just what has been happening to promote this view and where it comes from.

If you really want to get your head around the VERIFIABLE true history of the climate story, and learn how utterly underhanded the far-right have been in mishandling the truth, please hear this brilliant presentation by Dr Naomi Oreskes who traces the rise of the Denialist movement after the Cold War ended.

It seems the reality is that a bunch of heroic Cold War warriors felt useless when the Cold War ended. They needed another enemy to pounce on and defeat. They noticed the scientific community all abuzz with climate change, and suddenly decided that this was a threat.

These 'greenie communists' were demanding the world give up using fossil fuels like oil; didn't oil make America great? These good-old-boys from the rocket-program then assumed they were climate experts. They want to defeat these 'New Commies!' (Who only inhabit their own fevered imaginations). They demanded the RIGHT to burn fossil fuels! (Even though peak oil is upon us, and burning them causes cancer and kill tens of thousands of Americans every year.) And so they then went on to commit the greatest act of scientific sabotage in human history.

They created all the FUD against climate science, and broke it down into the silly Denialist sound-bytes we read above. (Co2 is plant food! Wow. I bet these climatologists who are committed to a lifetime of science never thought of that before!) They broke it down and promoted their lies and half-truths everywhere. They hypnotised the American right. They dumbed you all down. They are responsible for half of the Denialist untruths above.

Yet these were the good ol-boys of the Cold War. You'll be shocked when you hear their names. These guys WERE heroes, but now they have disgraced themselves. Shame on them. When the American right finally feels the reality of Global Warming both drying up your rivers and flooding your towns and blowing away your croplands and shrinking your ice meltwater, and you finally have to admit it's happening; it's real; you'll see these guys as the villains they are. It's like they faked the Moon Landing.
Naomi Oreskes - Merchants of Doubt - Science Show - 8 January 2011

 

[CryptoLutheran]

How interesting that as the leftist goals to implement authoritarian socialism worldwide has been dimished by free market captaism, the hysteria of "global warming" comes along to refuel the engine of the leftist totalitarians dreams and aspirations to rule over earth.

Actually the true threat to God-fearing Capitalism is gravity. Everyone knows this.

NEWTON LIED!

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NNSV]

@ MNSV
1. Co2 = plant food
You sound like you're singing from the Denialist hymn book there.
Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!”

We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Plants are also vulnerable to various problems if they get too much 'plant food'. It messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.
The “CO2 is Good for Plants” Crock. Turns out — not so much. « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.
How plants respond to increasing carbon dioxide - Science Show - 3 July 2010

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased famines and floods.

Trying to insinuate that Co2 can't change the climate because it is 'natural' and we exhale it and plants need it, well, that's as disingenuous as arguing water cannot hurt people because it is natural. Indeed, we need to DRINK it or we die! So therefore Tsunamis and floods can't kill people? Um.... someone join those dots for me again?
2. Methane is a greenhouse gas
What ... are you trying to tell us that methane eventually breaks down? I'm not even a scientist but can tell you're trying to baffle lay people like myself with big equations. What has that got to do with the conversation? Of COURSE it breaks down! And that's completely irrelevant. The climatologists (surprise surprise) KNOW that. They explain that if it didn't break down, and had the same lifetime as Co2 in the atmosphere, it would be 70 times stronger as a Greenhouse gas. But fortunately it has a shorter life, and so is only about 21 times worse than Co2.

Interesting little diversion, but what's it got to DO with anything?

3. Conspiracy theories
Sorry, but I just don't buy all the conspiracy theories. Science is too cut throat, and too competitive. Believe me, it's just human nature. If they could disprove it they would. Imagine being a young climatologist — the temptation to go looking for proof against it would be very strong. Disproving it for REAL in the peer-reviewed (not looney tunes) science literature would not only make their career, it would assure their place in history.

There's a conspiracy theory to paint the Left as needing a new cause since the USSR collapsed, that the Left just picked up climate change as their new champion. That's rubbish. It's almost exactly the wrong way around from what has actually occurred over the last few decades.

Dr Namoi Oreskes revealed to Australian Broadcasting Corporation in an hour long speech just what has been happening to promote this view and where it comes from.

If you really want to get your head around the VERIFIABLE true history of the climate story, and learn how utterly underhanded the far-right have been in mishandling the truth, please hear this brilliant presentation by Dr Naomi Oreskes who traces the rise of the Denialist movement after the Cold War ended.

It seems the reality is that a bunch of heroic Cold War warriors felt useless when the Cold War ended. They needed another enemy to pounce on and defeat. They noticed the scientific community all abuzz with climate change, and suddenly decided that this was a threat.

These 'greenie communists' were demanding the world give up using fossil fuels like oil; didn't oil make America great? These good-old-boys from the rocket-program then assumed they were climate experts. They want to defeat these 'New Commies!' (Who only inhabit their own fevered imaginations). They demanded the RIGHT to burn fossil fuels! (Even though peak oil is upon us, and burning them causes cancer and kill tens of thousands of Americans every year.) And so they then went on to commit the greatest act of scientific sabotage in human history.

They created all the FUD against climate science, and broke it down into the silly Denialist sound-bytes we read above. (Co2 is plant food! Wow. I bet these climatologists who are committed to a lifetime of science never thought of that before!) They broke it down and promoted their lies and half-truths everywhere. They hypnotised the American right. They dumbed you all down. They are responsible for half of the Denialist untruths above.

Yet these were the good ol-boys of the Cold War. You'll be shocked when you hear their names. These guys WERE heroes, but now they have disgraced themselves. Shame on them. When the American right finally feels the reality of Global Warming both drying up your rivers and flooding your towns and blowing away your croplands and shrinking your ice meltwater, and you finally have to admit it's happening; it's real; you'll see these guys as the villains they are. It's like they faked the Moon Landing.
Naomi Oreskes - Merchants of Doubt - Science Show - 8 January 2011

Believe whatever you want to believe man... that is all that matters isn't it?

It is completely futile to argue with you. You are resolute, I am resolute. But, hold on to it, and don't let anyone tell you anything different, especially me. Wherever your pride and intellectual resolution resides in these times, don't let me or anything else persuade you. At least you are staunch in your position. Good luck with that, though.


And, btw it is NNSV, not MNSV

 

[maccadonn]

Hi eclipsenow., or D...
I think you overwhelmed NNSV with too much all at once! I would like to hear some answers to some of these questions. eg. Like the inevitable methane increase and breakdown and how this should lead to bluer skies and more ozone if true; but you're saying not so because it has a shorter life, etc.

re the disconnect between right and left. It is an increasingly interesting phenomenon it seems to me. I really don't think your theory about how much of the distrust of the left's views and values, emanating from deliberate distortions of reality by a few with a need for another enemy (a green one) after the cold war, even if true, could account for so much else that keeps the two sides diametrically opposed. You know me, I want to keep it simple.
"The bigger the government the smaller the citizen"
Dennis Prager

I think there is so much wisdom in that simple statement. Average individuals are our greatest resource, and magic can happen the more they're actually free to just create; this is when prosperity grows for all. There will be no redemption for the world in this lifetime, but there can be great wonder and far less cruelty, suffering and death.

 

[NNSV]

Hi eclipsenow., or D...
I think you overwhelmed NNSV with too much all at once! I would like to hear some answers to some of these questions. eg. Like the inevitable methane increase and breakdown and how this should lead to bluer skies and more ozone if true; but you're saying not so because it has a shorter life, etc.

re the disconnect between right and left. It is an increasingly interesting phenomenon it seems to me. I really don't think your theory about how much of the distrust of the left's views and values, emanating from deliberate distortions of reality by a few with a need for another enemy (a green one) after the cold war, even if true, could account for so much else that keeps the two sides diametrically opposed. You know me, I want to keep it simple.
"The bigger the government the smaller the citizen"
Dennis Prager

I think there is so much wisdom in that simple statement. Average individuals are our greatest resource, and magic can happen the more they're actually free to just create; this is when prosperity grows for all. There will be no redemption for the world in this lifetime, but there can be great wonder and far less cruelty, suffering and death.

Rest assured, he did not overwhelm me. I just recognize his argument (oversimplification, invalidation, then self-verification,) and we will never be able to converse about the issue at hand. He is completely dogged in his thinking, and while I am somewhat resolute in my own views (because I can scientifically prove it myself,) I doubt we will ever even agree to disagree.

I write posts in the "Creationism and Evolution" forum, as well as the "Ethics and Morality" forum; eclipsenow is nowhere near overwhelming me . I have been around the CF block.


BTW, Ozone (O3) is what makes the sky blue, and ozone protects the earth from ionizing radiation like UV rays (because they absorb them to make more ozone.)

 

[radennis0]

So long as no one says that it is "settled science" I am OK with the scientific debate.

www . foxnews . com / scitech / 2011 / 09 / 14 / nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global /

Warming and cooling can be related to man's works, but not exclusively.

www . gcrio . org / CONSEQUENCES / winter96 / sunclimate.html

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Still, more factors were obviously perturbing the climate system than the lone hand of greenhouse gases. The global-mean temperature did not rise steadily: statistical analyses of the temperature record since 1850 reveal significant year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability. Moreover, what is known of the longer climatic record suggests that surface temperatures may have been systematically increasing since the late 17th century, well before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when greenhouse gas concentrations first began their upward climb."[/FONT]

 

[maccadonn]

This was a powerful article., Have you seen this Eclipse? You've mentioned the point about peer reviewed science being so important for integrity., well here it is. Or am I missing something?

www . populartechnology . net / 2009 / 10 / peer-reviewed-papers-supporting . html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi Maccadonn

I've told you before that I'm not necessarily talking about the size of the government or necessarily being left or right wing in one's 'political economy'. I'm talking about the overall direction of society and what powers it and how utterly destructive it all is. We really are committing ecocide. This generation. Right here and now.

And it's not my theory about how far-right paranoia has filled the void of the Cold War with Watermelon paranoia. (Green on the outside, supposedly red on the inside). It's Dr Naomi Oreskes.

One reviewer said that Merchants of Doubt is exhaustively researched and documented, and may be one of the most important books of 2010. Another reviewer saw the book as his choice for best science book of the year.[3]

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does it claim?

Themes

Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[4] The book states that these scientists have challenged the scientific consensus about the dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[4] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[4] Oreskes and Conway reach the conclusion that:

There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.[4][5]

All three are physicists: Singer was a rocket scientist, whereas Nierenberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb.[6] Oreskes and Conway state: "small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".[7]

There's nothing to argue with here Maccadon. It's just historical fact. These great heroes of the Cold War have farted away the Right's intellectual credibility. The Republican's used to be Conservative with nature, too, and established one of the world's best ideas — National Parks. It's sad that they are not taking that Conservative approach with climate science and the undisputed physics of how Greenhouses gases refract infra-red light. It's sad that they pooh-poo disciplines they are not qualified in. It's sad they're fighting the worldwide consensus.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eclipsenow]

@ MNSV

Rest assured, he did not overwhelm me. I just recognize his argument (oversimplification, invalidation, then self-verification,) and we will never be able to converse about the issue at hand. He is completely dogged in his thinking, and while I am somewhat resolute in my own views (because I can scientifically prove it myself,) I doubt we will ever even agree to disagree.

You can prove it to yourself, but have you published in a climate paper? ;-) I don't pretend to be a scientist and run the equations myself. I just highlight the bottom-line errors and straw-man attacks that Denialists run, and the side tracking and hiding, and point to what the ACTUAL climate scientists ACTUALLY say.

And I'll just highlight again that this thread is not about the Ozone layer, but global warming, and you haven't proved the relevance of any of those paragraphs to this discussion. Indeed, you just avoided the objections to the "Co2 = plant food" stuff you were pushing, and haven't answered Maccadon's questions either.