Catholicism and Climate Change

[lynnvinc]

Now that we all accept AGW (at least at the .5 p level), and after a healthy discussion ad infinitum about the scientific self-correcting process – that errors are made, others point them out, science makes corrections, and so on – we need to roll up our sleeves and start mitigating.

What would Jesus do? Well, he’d find ways to substantially reduce his carbon footprint, which would also lower his toxic pollution & acid rain footprint. And he’d save lots of money to boot by doing that…which he could then invest in his ministry & help make people into better Christians.

 

[Anselm33]

Now that we all accept AGW (at least at the .5 p level), and after a healthy discussion ad infinitum about the scientific self-correcting process – that errors are made, others point them out, science makes corrections, and so on – ting.

I don’t accept AGW at any level above the .0005 . And if you use an expectation value argument (a la Pascal’s wager), even if one were (notice the careful use of the subjunctive) to accept it at the .5 level, the costs in destroying the economy of this country and giving zealous, anti-religious Greens (I don’t mean you Lynn Vinc) control over our lives would not be worth the .5 times monetary gain in implementing their control.
I have not posted in this thread for some time for the following reason:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

 

[Anselm33]

Now that we all accept AGW (at least at the .5 p level)

I’ll wear my statistics and mathematician/philosophy hat now … a p-value is meaningful only in an evidential probability context, i.e. if you have a sample and are measuring it and know that you have a given distribution for sample parameters. Otherwise probability is a measure of belief (see books by Richard Jeffreys, Lesley Salmon and many others), as the weatherman who says, there’s a 40% probability of rain tomorrow, or the trained pathologist who says it’s 85% likely that this biopsy represents a certain kind of cancer.
(No samples, just experience, hunches and beliefs.)
Now I’ll wear my physicist and scientist hat. The AGW crowd are frauds who have given science a bad name by falsifying data, and rejecting the civilized discourse that used to be part of the scientific process. They have prostituted themselves for power and grants.
I believe nothing that comes from them or from their deluded adherents. What they say is tainted, so that even were there the slightest element of truth in something said, it would be swept away by all the false and misleading statements that have been made.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I’ll wear my statistics and mathematician/philosophy hat now … a p-value is meaningful only in an evidential probability context, i.e. if you have a sample and are measuring it and know that you have a given distribution for sample parameters. Otherwise probability is a measure of belief (see books by Richard Jeffreys, Lesley Salmon and many others), as the weatherman who says, there’s a 40% probability of rain tomorrow, or the trained pathologist who says it’s 85% likely that this biopsy represents a certain kind of cancer.
(No samples, just experience, hunches and beliefs.)
Now I’ll wear my physicist and scientist hat. The AGW crowd are frauds who have given science a bad name by falsifying data, and rejecting the civilized discourse that used to be part of the scientific process. They have prostituted themselves for power and grants.
I believe nothing that comes from them or from their deluded adherents. What they say is tainted, so that even were there the slightest element of truth in something said, it would be swept away by all the false and misleading statements that have been made.

Well said

 

[kimmielittle]

What would Jesus do?

He’d have the truth - without guesstimates and hypothesis AND it would, I believe be quite hard to hide from Him.

 

[John21652]

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

 

[Ender]

The Claim is Mr Hansen lent his support via his name and affiliation ] to a book and author who supports such things as: “razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”?

There is simply no doubt but that Hansen supports sabotage to achieve his green goals. In 2008, six Greenpeace activists did about $55K damage to a new coal plant in Kent, England. Hansen testified on their behalf giving an hour long recitation of the “imminent peril” the Earth faced from CO2 emissions. The saboteurs, using the “lawful excuse” … excuse … were found not guilty.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

There is simply no doubt but that Hansen supports sabotage to achieve his green goals. In 2008, six Greenpeace activists did about $55K damage to a new coal plant in Kent, England. Hansen testified on their behalf giving an hour long recitation of the “imminent peril” the Earth faced from CO2 emissions. The saboteurs, using the “lawful excuse” … excuse … were found not guilty.

Ender

ABSOLUTELY!!

Isn’t it funny how the definition of “Hero” is defined by the AGW’s side?

Note: Did you notice no comments made about Mr. Hansens former boss calling him an “activist and an embarrassment”? theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

I’ll say it again, “It’s like a bad parent excusing the actions of a bad child”. You do no service for / to the bad child, by excusing them. All it does it reinforce the low credibility that can be charitably assigned to the child. AND it certainly, in my book, lends little credibility to the parent. Once the “Yes, buts…to every action” Start from the parents mouth…the debate has been surrendered.

 

[kimmielittle]

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

I posted this the day it was released - funny no AGW’ers here commented on it. Almost, like it was some inconvenient truth

 

[kimmielittle]

That’s a funny way of saying it. The higher the climate sensitivity, the greater the temperature increase will be from increased CO2 emissions. Note that lambda isn’t a value you “put into” climate models, it’s something you pull out.

It is dependent on (name removed by moderator)ut - and it is assigned a value in the second stage of the total equation - according to you from, 1.5 - 4.5…This, in common sense, would mean - it is not an independent, It is demanding a value issued it.

How long would you last, outside of AGW, telling your boss the range is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5? And may change values at any given time - because frankly, we don’t know, boss ]

Doctor, you have between 150 and 450 vials of serum to give these sick children.

Boss, we have enough grazing land to support between 150 and 450 head.

You are over drawn between $150.00 and $450.00 dollars.

The value issued lambda - is the VERY heart of AGW’s hypothesis - Without it…

 

[4elise]

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

Perhaps reading the entire article would shed more light on the subject… (JasonSB has repeatedly addressed the issue of uncertainty as it relates to ANY science - not that it will overturn a theory but continued research is always done, always needed and wanted by scientists.)

Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. (the interpretation of the author of this article) It now says: “There is little confidence in **specific projections **of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

It adds: “It is not possible to determine **exactly how much **the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change **could **emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

The working group that produced the new guide took advice from two Royal Society fellows who have links to the climate-sceptic think-tank founded by Lord Lawson of Blaby.

Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge are members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. They were among 43 fellows who signed a petition sent to Lord Rees, the society’s president, asking for its statement on climate change to be rewritten to take more account of questions raised by sceptics.

Professor John Pethica, the society’s vice-president and chairman of the working group that wrote the document, said the guide stated clearly that there was “strong evidence” that the warming of the Earth over the past half-century had been caused largely by human activity.

Meanwhile, the Government is planning an exercise to test how England and Wales would cope with severe flooding caused by climate change. Exercise Watermark will take place in March and test emergency services and communities on a range of scenarios that could occur.

 

[kimmielittle]

Perhaps reading the entire article would shed more light on the subject… (JasonSB has repeatedly addressed the issue of uncertainty as it relates to ANY science - not that it will overturn a theory but continued research is always done, always needed and wanted by scientists.)

Perhaps understanding the entire article, might help?

“some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”.

Meaning uncertainties in the AGW hypothesis exists now - that may never be reduced.

“The size of future temperature increases and** other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”**

****

“There is little confidence in **specific projections **of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

So they can’t predict climate change except maybe on a continent. No sea level rises - hurricanes - etc etc World wide.

**“It is not possible to determine **exactly how much ****the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

I thought there was a consensus?

And on…till this

“strong evidence” that the warming of the Earth over the past half-century had been caused largely by human activity.

Well of

course, just more UH centers contribute to some warming.

But that isn’t saying like AGW’ers do - That CO2 is the main driver of climate, now is it?

 

[kimmielittle]

(JasonSB has repeatedly addressed the issue of uncertainty as it relates to ANY science - not that it will overturn a theory but continued research is always done, always needed and wanted by scientists.)

Actually, no. He seems to be spending most of his time defending “Heroes” And issuing Ad Hominems

 

[4elise]

Perhaps understanding the entire article, might help?

Meaning uncertainties in the AGW hypothesis exists now - that may never be reduced.



So they can’t predict climate change except maybe on a continent. No sea level rises - hurricanes - etc etc World wide.

I thought there was a consensus?

And on…till this

Well of

course, just more UH centers contribute to some warming.

But that isn’t saying like AGW’ers do - That CO2 is the main driver of climate, now is it?

:banghead:

It also didn’t say that Manchester United would win the championship - or what restaurant had the best chips it did say;

**

“strong evidence” that the warming of the Earth over the past half-century had been caused largely by human activity

.**

*(Is it just me or does it them make sense to CHANGE that human activity to reverse the warming? ) *

while the title **“Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics” **implies a move in the UK against an acceptance of AGW - (which is why you most likely did not get a reply) it just states EXACTLY what Jason SB has been trying to say to you in about thirty different ways (i.e. #544 )

Scientists continue to study, to seek information, to evaluate data — and that’s my :twocents:

 

[4elise]

to - kimmielittle;

Curious why your non AGW good stewardship group content can’t be viewed by the public?

If there are good tips wouldn’t you want everyone to be able to see it and implement the ideas - not just the three of you?

 

[kimmielittle]

*(Is it just me or does it them make sense to CHANGE that human activity to reverse the warming? ) *

Again, I’ll ask…show me one ‘solution’ offered by IPCC / UN that mitigates 1C

while the title **“Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics” **implies a move in the UK against an acceptance of AGW - (which is why you most likely did not get a reply) it just states EXACTLY what Jason SB has been trying to say to you in about thirty different ways (i.e. #544 )

You do not find me in disagreement that more investigation is needed - None of my posts have even alluded to that.

Yours, however, have alluded a 95% certainty in CO2 being the main driver of climate

Do you think the Royal Society would have “Bowed to climate skeptics” If there wasn’t a great deal of “uncertainty” that exsists in the AGW hypothesis?

Are you saying the Royal Society is wishy-washy enough to just change it’s official views - without good reason?

 

[kimmielittle]

to - kimmielittle;

Curious why your non AGW good stewardship group content can’t be viewed by the public?

Ummmm because it’s moderated???

 

[kimmielittle]

to - kimmielittle;

Curious why your non AGW good stewardship group content can’t be viewed by the public?

If there are good tips wouldn’t you want everyone to be able to see it and implement the ideas - not just the three of you?

Didn’t work did it It’s not the numbers it’s the quality

 

[4elise]

Didn’t work did it It’s not the numbers it’s the quality

Again - if it is a place where people can share quality ways to care for creation - why the need for moderating?

 

[John21652]

Perhaps reading the entire article would shed more light on the subject… (JasonSB has repeatedly addressed the issue of uncertainty as it relates to ANY science - not that it will overturn a theory but continued research is always done, always needed and wanted by scientists.)

It adds: “It is not possible to determine **exactly how much **the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change **could **emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

That sounds like the Weather Forecasting Service over the past, like, 100 years!