Catholicism and Climate Change

[4elise]

Kimmie, Ender, and Jason:

Perhaps I’m stepping into the crossfire – or perhaps I’m just playing the obligatory “can’t we all just get along” patsy in every internet argument – but it seems to me that two things are at play here:

1. Very smart and very well-meaning people on both sides of the debate continue to disagree. In fact, Jason and Ender continually had me waffling on what I thought as I read their (somewhat challenging) posts.
2. This thread was supposed to be a discussion of what a Catholic’s obligations are with regard to AGW, not a debate about the validity of that theory.

I, personally, must defer to people who are much smarter than I when it comes to the science. I am, thus, somewhat on the fence on the issue – though leaning away from the anthropogenic hypothesis. The important thing is, though, that a Catholic ought to make his/her choice in good faith based on his/her best understanding.

In either case, we are all called to be good financial stewards, good earthly stewards, and good citizens. That said, from a moral standpoint, whether AGW is correct is irrelevant, because we should take common-sense steps to preserve our planet and to care for the poor anyway. These steps should be a reasonable combination of governmental programs, corporate enterprises, and individual acts of charity – because there is no reasonable way for any of these avenues to be the only effectual one.

Peace,
Dante

Dear Dante,

Like you I have been very impressed by the exchanges on this thread between Ender and Jason SB - and the obvious amount of experience that is brought to the table - I think Jason has responded to all of the well reasoned points that Ender has made and he has also remained very patient with our young friend Kimmie.

As you say - the original thread was regarding the ‘Catholic’ response - something Ender and I have had many exchanges on over the past year.

I stipulate to his frequent observation that the Pope has not said “it is a sin not to believe in AGW” -however the Church leadership has spoken (including the Holy Father) on this topic and the urgent need to act - so I for one am very grateful for the Church weighing in on this: usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=312

The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: catholicsandclimatechange.org/

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

* Social Development and World Peace/Environmental Justice Program More
* Catholic Campaign for Human Development More
* Migration and Refugee Services of the USCCB More

National Religious Partnership for the Environment More

Other Partnering Organizations

* Catholic Relief Services More
* National Council of Catholic Women More
* Catholic Health Association of the United States More
* Catholic Charities USA More
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference More
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities More
* Franciscan Action Network More
* Carmelite NGO More
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious More
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men More

Partners Respond to Impacts of Climate Change
Learn about these important ministries and what you can do to support them:

* Catholic Health Association More
* Catholic Relief Services More
* Catholic Charities USA More
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference More
* Carmelite NGO More

The Holy Father: ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=97783
“The protection of the environment, and the safeguarding of resources **and of the climate, **oblige all leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the world.” -

As a world leader the Holy Father speaks to other world leaders to act on the issue of climate keeping the poor at the heart of the discussion - yes Ender - he does not support a specific action - but repeatedly says it is an urgent issue -

So - yes the Church is responding - some think the Church has no place in this discussion, and I think it is quite the contrary - we should be the LEADERS - because how this impacts people, and particularly the poor around the world.

I know even those who are the staunchest deniers of AGW care about creation and want to act in such a way as to care for creation - and I would never imply otherwise - however recognizing that man’s actions are impacting this means we have to make different decisions as individuals and with policy -

I think there is a risk in just saying - people of good will may disagree, so we should all just do what we think is right - when the OVERWHELMING science points to the anthropogenic impact - we need to mitigate that impact and quickly because we are people of faith - because we care about our brothers and sisters around the world.

Blessings

 

[Ender]

“False statement”? You haven’t disagreed with my assessment that his objection was to the use of the word “likely” based on the evidence at the time.

It depends on what you think science is. When Trenberth made his statement on hurricanes it was not supported by the science (whether it is or is not supported now is irrelevant); Landsea pointed this out in no uncertain terms to the IPCC and was ignored.

To take one statement, mischaracterise it as “false”, then assume there are others, and then use that assumption to justify a belief that the theory is “rather reliant on them” is a little odd, don’t you think?

The problem with the IPCC and the entire AGW community has been its disingenuousness, not all of which falls on CRU or the IPCC but they all suffer from the same fault: they behave like advocacy groups, not merely scientific ones. If AGW is correct then why do its advocates find it so necessary to resort to less-than-scientific and less-than-ethical means to make their case? The IPCC has written into their summaries conclusions not supported by the science in the body of their own reports; CRU has obviously tried not just to stonewall their critics but to obstruct the efforts of “denialists” to get out competing opinions; the media and environmental extremist groups (admittedly, a redundant description) have resorted to the wildest speculations and exaggerations all to the same end: to effect the acceptance of a scientific theory about which there is still considerable scientific debate.

I have fourteen years’ experience writing and selling …Before that I was in academia, so I know both sides of the coin, and I know the difference between a program that a researcher whips up as a tool to test out an idea and commercial software that must be maintained and be idiot-proof.

I am reluctant to get into specifics about myself because no argument should be determined by the claim that “my position is correct because I’m the better, smarter, more experienced, etc person.” To that end I have given out almost no information whatever about myself - because it shouldn’t matter. If I were to claim 20 years of system and application programming experience with one of the world’s best know computer companies, would it make a difference?

The fact you thought it was a file rather than comments extracted from throughout the source tree is telling.

You’re not reading carefully. I understand how code is commented.

The point, of course, is that programmers routinely describe things as “hacks” or “kludges” or worse.

Code yes, data no.

To dismiss the possibility of that with a trite cliche and no attempt to understand what’s actually being done says more about you than it does about their work.

I don’t think understanding what was actually being done is all that difficult and while my comment may be a cliche it is nonetheless also a truism: no program can improve the accuracy of the data fed into it. If the programmer working with the data expressed concerns over it then we are certainly justified in expressing similar opinions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I stipulate to his frequent observation that the Pope has not said “it is a sin not to believe in AGW” -however the Church leadership has spoken (including the Holy Father) on this topic and the urgent need to act

Act how? We have a moral obligation not to act in opposition to our conscience and if the Church leaves the determination of whether to accept or reject the science behind AGW up to me then where’s the issue? Besides, by opposing AGW I am acting, which is what I consider the urgent need at this point.

So - yes the Church is responding - some think the Church has no place in this discussion, and I think it is quite the contrary - we should be the LEADERS - because how this impacts people, and particularly the poor around the world.

You cannot claim we should act because of “how this impacts people” when in fact not only do we not know how this would impact people but we don’t know whether there will be any impact at all. You can suggest that we should act because AGW might be true and its claims of catastrophic impact might be true but you cannot say we should act because it is true.

I think there is a risk in just saying - people of good will may disagree, so we should all just do what we think is right - when the OVERWHELMING science points to the anthropogenic impact - we need to mitigate that impact and quickly because we are people of faith - because we care about our brothers and sisters around the world.

First, I reject the claim that science overwhelmingly supports AGW. I put that suggestion in the same bucket with the claim that polar bears are endangered and the Himalayas are melting. Second, I haven’t seen proposals that indicate we can do anything meaningful anyway, let alone do anything quickly. If you look at the Kyoto projections you can see how minimal an impact even stringent changes would have. Third, if you’re serious about caring for our brothers and sisters around the world then you might want to rethink your support for an AGW community that sees populations as something to be controlled and reduced rather than aided and expanded.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

and he has also remained very patient with our young friend Kimmie.

You do, think he was very patient? IMHO It’s Funny how you see things. Every one of his posts from the beginning has snarked /snided and falsely accused me - yet, you said nothing. I give as good as I take.

That, is a lot better than some adults, I’ve seen in various threads / posts.

So please, stop with your patronizing / condescending tones / overtures.

I have never implied someone was amoral for not believing the way I do…Can you say the same?

Now, as I stated many times, When I see something come out of IPCC / UN… on or tied to climate change that isn’t some scheme but actually does something for the poor - or our environment, instead of line the pockets of the rich…I can not, with good moral conscience, support it. Nor, can I support the bodies behind the IPCC.

I have never attacked anyone for believing in AGW - That is THEIR right, just as it’s my right to disbelieve in AGW and the seemingly endless schemes attached to it.

Until, the science / scientists separate from the schemes / schemers - I see no moral reason to support either. Let alone, the facts that I don’t think the science has any more than an unproved hypothesis, at this stage.

You know, we’ve had much the same color of discussions in Vagan threads. It was implied there, in those threads, that I was amoral because I don’t believe it amoral to eat meat.

As you say - the original thread was regarding the ‘Catholic’ response - something Ender and I have had many exchanges on over the past year.,

I stipulate to his frequent observation that the Pope has not said “it is a sin not to believe in AGW” -however the Church leadership has spoken (including the Holy Father) on this topic and the urgent need to act - so I for one am very grateful for the Church weighing in on this: usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=312

The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: catholicsandclimatechange.org/

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

* Social Development and World Peace/Environmental Justice Program More
* Catholic Campaign for Human Development More
* Migration and Refugee Services of the USCCB More

National Religious Partnership for the Environment More

Other Partnering Organizations

* Catholic Relief Services More
* National Council of Catholic Women More
* Catholic Health Association of the United States More
* Catholic Charities USA More
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference More
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities More
* Franciscan Action Network More
* Carmelite NGO More
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious More
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men More

Partners Respond to Impacts of Climate Change
Learn about these important ministries and what you can do to support them:

* Catholic Health Association More
* Catholic Relief Services More
* Catholic Charities USA More
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference More
* Carmelite NGO More

The Holy Father: ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=97783
“The protection of the environment, and the safeguarding of resources **and of the climate, **oblige all leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the world.” -

As a world leader the Holy Father speaks to other world leaders to act on the issue of climate keeping the poor at the heart of the discussion - yes Ender - he does not support a specific action - but repeatedly says it is an urgent issue -

So - yes the Church is responding - some think the Church has no place in this discussion, and I think it is quite the contrary - we should be the LEADERS - because how this impacts people, and particularly the poor around the world.

I know even those who are the staunchest deniers of AGW care about creation and want to act in such a way as to care for creation - and I would never imply otherwise - however recognizing that man’s actions are impacting this means we have to make different decisions as individuals and with policy -

I think there is a risk in just saying - people of good will may disagree, so we should all just do what we think is right - when the OVERWHELMING science points to the anthropogenic impact - we need to mitigate that impact and quickly because we are people of faith - because we care about our brothers and sisters around the world.

Blessings

Cite all the Catholic Organizations you want - None are asking more than good stewardship. I, and many other Catholics have been doing good stewardship BEFORE all the AGW schemes and hyperbole - and will continue with commonsense practices.

None have supported the IPCC / UN based schemes.

Personally, It’s an affront when AGW’ers act, or imply, they are more moral simply because they believe in some hypothesis.

Let me ask you a question. A believer like you, should be able to point to somethings the UN IPCC has helped you, personally, with mitigating AGW. Mind you I’m not talking about good stewardship conservation ], I mean the UN IPCC has been going on now for some, close to three decades?

Granted, they allowed groups like WWF to displace hunter-gather natives making them lose their heritage and cultures in-order to control large land tracks belonging to them.

But I’m talking about mitigating the temperature.

 

[kimmielittle]

Just a thought:

How much more morally convicted does it seem a person is, that practices good stewardship without believing in an unproven hypothesis or some modeled graph saying it’s warmer?

Doesn’t it seem, that their efforts are independent of a temperture gauge?

Doesn’t it seem they do these acts out of love - not because someone instilled a fear into them?

 

[JasonSB]

1. Very smart and very well-meaning people on both sides of the debate continue to disagree.

It’s important to understand that not all “smart people” are equally conversant with the issues at hand, and the “debate” you see here is not an accurate reflection of reality.

The reality is that the more qualified the person is to have an informed opinion, the more likely they are to agree with AGW:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

(Interestingly enough, scientists who are not active publishers are more likely to answer “I’m not sure” than the general public! This is a classic example of the observations of Darwin (“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”) and Bertrand Russell (“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”).en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect The real scepticism that scientists exhibit manifests itself as a lack of certainty that only dissipates as they become more and more familiar with the actual science involved; the “fake skepticism” that appears in the public debates manifests itself in a certainty that the science is wrong.)

When you look at the level of expertise, measured by the number of publications in the scientific literature, the difference is even more stark:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif

news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html

Some interesting statistics:

The median number of articles found on Google Scholar that mention climate by those in the IPCC Working Group 1 team – the people who laid the scientific basis for climate change – was 93 articles.

The median number of articles found on Google Scholar that mention climate by signers of public statements sceptical of global warming was two.

A Google Scholar search on Phil Jones, who has earned a lot of animosity on this thread because he chose not to share information with certain people who were engaged in “harassment via FOIA”, reveals 724 articles mentioning “Climate”. His four most cited works have 2,139 citations between them. Not only has he written a lot of articles, but a lot of other scientists have read his articles and referred to his work in their own articles.

A Google Scholar search on Christopher Monckton, who kimmielittle gets her “lambda” claims from and who isn’t even a scientist, reveals just 5 articles mentioning “Climate”, with just 2 citations between them.

And the amazing thing is that you could completely remove everything Phil Jones has ever done from the record, and it still wouldn’t have a measurable impact on the theory of AGW!

The two comments from David Greenwood in the following post are a perfect example of how learning more about the field changed a real scientists’ opinion, and serve as a good summary of the science as well:

http://climatesight.org/the-credibility-spectrum/#comment-2320

Scientific opinion is clear – no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has updated its 1999 statement, that rejected the likelihood of human influence on recent climate, to one that was “non-committal”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So please don’t judge the debate on what you read on forums like this no matter how “smart” and “well-meaning” you think Ender and I are.

In fact, Jason and Ender continually had me waffling on what I thought as I read their (somewhat challenging) posts.

The late Stephen Schneider has an excellent overview of the whole thing that explores many of the ideas that Ender raised:

youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4

It’s a long talk but well worth watching,

If you really think you are unqualified to form your own opinion, then by all means, look at what the experts who are qualified actually say. And we are often quite good an smelling something fishy even when we don’t understand what’s being said, so go ahead and put claims to the “sniff test” – does someone have an obvious conflict of interest, like seeking donations from vested interests to support their PR efforts and telling them in advance what they’re going to get for their money? Or a well-publicised ideology that is against any form of government regulation regardless of merit? And why does a company that makes $20 billion in profit per year selling fossil fuels decide to fund PR groups to manufacture uncertainty rather than putting a tiny fraction of that profit into funding a world-class climate science research group and prove that the pro-AGW scientists have been fudging the figures at the behest of Greenpeace and WWF?

And what about human nature? Nobody got famous for simply re-asserting something that was already known. Every scientist dreams of being the one to overturn conventional wisdom – to prove that what everybody else thinks is wrong. To think that scientists are actively lying about their results to support the established view so they can go on living “the high life” is just preposterous and shows absolutely no understanding of human nature at all (nor the economic realities of being a scientist).

But don’t sell yourself short – a lot of the ideas might seem impenetrable due to jargon or concepts you may be unfamiliar with, but the underlying principles themselves are often surprisingly straightforward. I’m happy to explain them as best I can if you’re interested, and point you to better sources than me if I’m not able to.

 

[JasonSB]

1. This thread was supposed to be a discussion of what a Catholic’s obligations are with regard to AGW, not a debate about the validity of that theory.

But whether AGW accurately reflects reality is central to whether Catholics have an obligation or not. If the science is correct then our actions, today, will affect the lives of millions of people in the future – and not just in terms of quality of life, but actually threatening their lives. And if the science is correct then the people who will be most affected are not only those least capable of dealing with the effects but also those least culpable in bringing those effects about. I see allowing that to happen as something that directly contradicts my understanding of the faith.

Conversely, if the science is completely wrong and our activities have nothing to do with what is happening, then we have no idea about what will happen next. The best we can do is adapt.

So the validity of the theory is central to the question of our obligations, and, like all scientific theories, there is uncertainty. However, the uncertainty does not allow us to simply dismiss the theory – that presupposes a certainty that the theory is wrong! What we should be doing is looking at it as a question of risk management, which is something we do all the time.

When you cross the street, you look at the hazards involved in that activity (e.g. being hit by a vehicle), determine the consequence or impact of each hazard (e.g. severe injury or death), the likelihood of each hazard, and combine those together to create a measure of the risk. (Note that if the consequence is severe enough, the risk can be high even if the likelihood is low.) You then judge whether the benefits of crossing the street outweigh the risk, and each person can make their own mind up about that – what they shouldn’t do is ignore expert opinion on the consequences and likelihoods of each hazard and deny that the risk exists, or claim that unless someone can prove that they will be hit by a vehicle, they’re just going to blindly walk across anyway.

I, personally, must defer to people who are much smarter than I when it comes to the science. I am, thus, somewhat on the fence on the issue – though leaning away from the anthropogenic hypothesis. The important thing is, though, that a Catholic ought to make his/her choice in good faith based on his/her best understanding.

I would love to know what is making you lean away from the anthropogenic hypothesis at the same time that the science itself is becoming clearer and clearer on the issue.

In either case, we are all called to be good financial stewards, good earthly stewards, and good citizens. That said, from a moral standpoint, whether AGW is correct is irrelevant, because we should take common-sense steps to preserve our planet and to care for the poor anyway. These steps should be a reasonable combination of governmental programs, corporate enterprises, and individual acts of charity – because there is no reasonable way for any of these avenues to be the only effectual one.

The problem is what people think are “common-sense steps to preserve our planet” depend on whether they accept AGW or not.

Before deciding on its correctness, I suggest having a close look at this, paying particular attention to the entries marked , and contrasting them to the entries marked [M], plus the humorous references to Al Gore: slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

 

[John21652]

First, I reject the claim that science overwhelmingly supports AGW. I put that suggestion in the same bucket with the claim that polar bears are endangered and the Himalayas are melting. Second, I haven’t seen proposals that indicate we can do anything meaningful anyway, let alone do anything quickly. If you look at the Kyoto projections you can see how minimal an impact even stringent changes would have. Third, if you’re serious about caring for our brothers and sisters around the world then you might want to rethink your support for an AGW community that sees populations as something to be controlled and reduced rather than aided and expanded.

Ender

Go to f: coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf

This is a survey done on climate scientists around the world. Over 300 participated. From the survey results, the following figures can be pulled out -

• Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.
• Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.
• Only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.
• Only 22% think atmospheric models deal with hydrodynamics in a manner that is adequate or very adequate. Thirty percent (30%) feel that way about atmospheric models’ treatment of radiation, and only 9% feel that atmospheric models are adequate in their treatment of water vapor–and not one respondent felt that they were ‘very adequate.’
• Only 1% felt that atmospheric models dealt well with clouds, while 46% felt they were inadequate or very inadequate. Only 2% felt the models dealt adequately with precipitation, and 3.5% felt that way about modeled treatment of atmospheric convection.
• Only 20% felt ocean models dealt well with hydrodynamics, 11% felt that way about modeled treatment of heat transport in the ocean, 6.5% felt that way about oceanic convection, and only 12% felt that there exists an adequate ability to couple atmospheric and ocean models.
• Only 7% agree or strongly agree that “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence,” and only 26% felt that way about surface albedo. Only 8% felt that way about land surface processes, and only 11% about sea ice.
• nly 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases emitted from anthropogenic sources.

Now go here for the [Global Warming Petition (Global Warming Petition Project), signed by 31487 American scientists, of whom 9029 have PhDs.

Then head across to good old Wikipedia, where climate change dissenters even have their own page - [scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)

Meanwhile, despite the unsettled nature of the science, the pro-AGW brigade march on with their plans to tax carbon and use it as an income redistribution tool. On global scale. The Gren lobby has hijacked much of the debate and their position is extreme. They are economically regressive and socially progressive. Carbon is their excuse.

 

[kimmielittle]

The fallacy of appealing to authority?

Mr Jones was quoted as being published and quoted, by others, many times.

Well, that’s just the problem with this fallacy. The Jones - Wang 1990 papers have been at the very backbone of AGW - Have been used in many other papers as reference. And in AR4 of the IPCC.

Written by Rebecca Terrell Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:45 http://www.google.com/buzz/post

As much as the scientists at the center of Climategate wish it would just fade away, new evidence keeps surfacing to fan the flames of controversy. The latest item regards weather monitoring stations situated in remote parts of rural China.
The Climategate e-mails implicate two influential climate researchers in fraudulent cover-up of Chinese temperature data. According to The Guardian, the numbers didn’t fit with their climate models showing dramatic rise in global warming. The researchers are Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University (a group influential in composing the UN’s keystone climate reports), and Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang, a professor at the University at Albany.
In 1990, Jones and Wang published a paper in the journal Nature concluding the “urban heat effect” has little to do with global warming. They used temperature data from a quickly urbanizing area of eastern China to illustrate their findings, specifically data from 84 weather stations with few significant moves. The issue of moves was important to prove how significantly urban sprawl affected temperature readings at originally outlying stations over time. The UN’s 2007 climate report, known as the Fourth Assessment Report or AR4, quoted the *Nature *paper saying that urban sprawl has little to do with rising global temperatures.
Once AR4 made its debut, mathematician Doug Keenan questioned the legitimacy of the Jones/Wang research and accused the climate scientists of fraud. Of the 84 stations Jones and Wang referenced, Keenan discovered that 35 of them had substantial moves and the remaining 49 had no histories, so moves could not be determined. His findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment.

thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2914-chinagate-the-continuing-climategate-saga

1. It should be noted that the CRU e-mails regarding the Jones-Keenan affair are incomplete. I am in the possession of e-mail correspondence with Phil Jones about the Keenan paper that is not included in the published CRU e-mails. The point is that the ‘unauthorised publication’ referred to in the terms of reference is by no means a complete publication. There is likely to be much more other CRU email traffic bearing on the question of the CRU’s scientific integrity, over and above the emails already disclosed. In the interest of veracity and transparency all correspondence by CRU researchers regarding the fraud allegations in question should be disclosed in full so the exact nature and extent of attempts to prevent the publication of Keenan’s paper can be established.

thegwpf.org/climategate/590-climategate-the-jones-keenan-affair.html

 

[Ender]

The real scepticism that scientists exhibit manifests itself as a lack of certainty that only dissipates as they become more and more familiar with the actual science involved; the “fake skepticism” that appears in the public debates manifests itself in a certainty that the science is wrong.)

I think you have this backwards as to the public debates. Opposition (in my case specifically) comes from reacting to the half-truths, non-truths, and dissembling, self serving arguments made on behalf of AGW. Whatever the state of the science, the PR machine selling it can best be likened to the traveling snake-oil salesmen of the old west. When incidents such as the hacked emails surface it does nothing more than confirm the perception that dishonesty is not restricted to the media and special interest groups but pervades the science as well. It is not the certainty that AGW is wrong that drives me but a profound distrust of everyone and everything associated with it. I’m from Missouri: show me … don’t snow me. I still have no answer to the question why, if the science is so overwhelmingly supportive of AGW, there is so much disingenuousness involved in making that point?

When you look at the level of expertise, measured by the number of publications in the scientific literature, the difference is even more stark:
news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html

This is an interesting paper and cannot simply be dismissed … so I’ll wait to see what response it generates and go from there. This may simply be a reprise of the Oreskes-Peiser papers.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below.

There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with ** CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data**.

iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009…%E2%80%9D-one/

OR HERE

 

[shaky]

I think you have this backwards as to the public debates. Opposition (in my case specifically) comes from reacting to the half-truths, non-truths, and dissembling, self serving arguments made on behalf of AGW. Whatever the state of the science, the PR machine selling it can best be likened to the traveling snake-oil salesmen of the old west. When incidents such as the hacked emails surface it does nothing more than confirm the perception that dishonesty is not restricted to the media and special interest groups but pervades the science as well. It is not the certainty that AGW is wrong that drives me but a profound distrust of everyone and everything associated with it. I’m from Missouri: show me … don’t snow me. I still have no answer to the question why, if the science is so overwhelmingly supportive of AGW, there is so much disingenuousness involved in making that point?
This is an interesting paper and cannot simply be dismissed … so I’ll wait to see what response it generates and go from there. This may simply be a reprise of the Oreskes-Peiser papers.

Ender

Hi Ender

There is scientific Evidence that the activity of the Sun has been getting hotter.
If you Google global warming and the Sun this explains things.
Also if you google global warming and the bible. Its in Revelation its about one of the Angels pouring one of the bowls on the Sun causing it to get hotter to scorch man.

 

[Ender]

But whether AGW accurately reflects reality is central to whether Catholics have an obligation or not.

Not exactly. What is central to our obligations is dependent on what we reasonably believe to be true, not on what in fact is true. It is no more immoral to be wrong on AGW in real life than to be wrong on AGW on your climatology final exam. Discounting negligence and indifference, unless an act is intrinsically evil the only thing that can make any action immoral is the intent behind it. Obviously wanting to do good does not excuse employing immoral means to achieve it, but it is the intent, not the outcome, that determines morality.

If the science is correct then our actions, today, will affect the lives of millions of people in the future – and not just in terms of quality of life, but actually threatening their lives… I see allowing that to happen as something that directly contradicts my understanding of the faith.

But it is not a dispute between those who are “willing” to allow it to happen and those who are not but between those who think something is safe and those who think it dangerous. In that sense it is no different than a dispute between parents over whether or not their child is mature enough to cross the street by himself. Is it safe or is it dangerous?

Conversely, if the science is completely wrong and our activities have nothing to do with what is happening, then we have no idea about what will happen next. The best we can do is adapt.

If there was no down side to adapting no one would oppose it but in fact, based on some of the proposals being made, the down side appears to be enormous.

So the validity of the theory is central to the question of our obligations, and, like all scientific theories, there is uncertainty. However, the uncertainty does not allow us to simply dismiss the theory – that presupposes a certainty that the theory is wrong! What we should be doing is looking at it as a question of risk management, which is something we do all the time.

If people believed this there would be more clamor for developing detection and mitigation strategies to deal with wandering asteroids, which would do infinitely more damage and seem to me to be higher up the probability scale. Why aren’t you pushing for that?

When you cross the street, you look at the hazards involved in that activity

Exactly. Is the determination of the safety involved a moral question? If I make an informed decision and get hit anyway have I sinned? I don’t think so.

The problem is what people think are “common-sense steps to preserve our planet” depend on whether they accept AGW or not.

I suppose if you’re dying you might consider it worthwhile to travel to Mexico to get laetrile treatments in the hope that it will cure your malignant cancer but you would probably reconsider it if the expenses left your wife and family destitute. I haven’t seen any proposal that remotely looks like common sense; Jack (and the Beanstalk) got a better deal for his cow than we’re being offered.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Hi Ender

There is scientific Evidence that the activity of the Sun has been getting hotter.
If you Google global warming and the Sun this explains things.
Also if you google global warming and the bible. Its in Revelation its about one of the Angels pouring one of the bowls on the Sun causing it to get hotter to scorch man.

Thank you but I think we need something more scientific than Revelation. There are all sorts of things on the internet; you have to be careful about what you choose to believe. The issue of the sun’s activity has been raised and you have to read credible analyses on both sides before you can choose which seems to make the most sense.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

As a world leader the Holy Father speaks to other world leaders to act on the issue of climate **keeping the poor at the heart of the discussion **- yes Ender - he does not support a specific action - but repeatedly says it is an urgent issue -

So - yes the Church is responding - some think the Church has no place in this discussion, and I think it is quite the contrary - we should be the LEADERS - because how this impacts people, **and particularly the poor around the world. **

I find it disturbing to try to compare the pure motivation of the Holy Father and his true love for the poor, with the obvious agenda of the AGW group who are not so altruistic. Instead of protesting the way the poor are treated, they seem to question their very right to exist. They abuse human rights with their “family planning” agenda and the message they tout is that in order to eliminate poverty, it is the poor themselves who must be eliminated. (Look how Africa, for example, has been targeted with birth control measures by this very group.) Their mantra is that an unsustainable population growth has resulted in global warming/climate change that threatens human existence. What confuses me, and I find it very bizarre, is that Catholics could buy into this logic which advocates all manner of things completely antithetical to church teaching and the true culture of sustaining life.

“Birth control appeals to the advanced radical….calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday from the tyranny of Christianity; no less than capitalism”.

~ Margart Sanger ~

And……from our very own kimmielittle (Forgive me, kimmie, but this is great and I know you won’t mind):

Anything promoting less than reverence of (ALL) life, devours, and thus-ly, is devoured.

~ kimmielittle ~

 

[kimmielittle]

Every wonder why they changed the name from “Anthropogenic Global Warming” to “Climate Change”?

It’s a trick.

“Climate change” is a constant feature of life on planet earth.

So they Re-branded “global warming” as “climate change”.
It is a way of making their scare tactics not falsifiable and thus not refutable by the scientific method. see Popper’s law of falsifiability ]

If global warming is really a threat, then it is precisely global warming, not the amorphous “climate change” that is the problem.

By calling it “climate change” - it reduces it to a pseudo-science and is defined by lack of falsifiability.

It now is much like religion Maybe, that was the intent ] - You can not disprove it - so you can not prove it using empirical scientific evidence techniques.

Climate DOES Change

 

[kimmielittle]

I find it disturbing to try to compare the pure motivation of the Holy Father and his true love for the poor, with the obvious agenda of the AGW group who are not so altruistic. Instead of protesting the way the poor are treated, they seem to question their very right to exist. They abuse human rights with their “family planning” agenda and the message they tout is that in order to eliminate poverty, it is the poor themselves who must be eliminated. (Look how Africa, for example, has been targeted with birth control measures by this very group.) Their mantra is that an unsustainable population growth has resulted in global warming/climate change that threatens human existence. What confuses me, and I find it very bizarre, is that Catholics could buy into this logic which advocates all manner of things completely antithetical to church teaching and the true culture of sustaining life.

And……from our very own kimmielittle (Forgive me, kimmie, but this is great and I know you won’t mind):

 

[Ender]

The Jones - Wang 1990 papers have been at the very backbone of AGW - Have been used in many other papers as reference. And in AR4 of the IPCC.

In 1990, Jones and Wang published a paper in the journal Nature concluding the “urban heat effect” has little to do with global warming. They used temperature data from a quickly urbanizing area of eastern China to illustrate their findings, specifically data from 84 weather stations with few significant moves. The issue of moves was important to prove how significantly urban sprawl affected temperature readings at originally outlying stations over time. The UN’s 2007 climate report, known as the Fourth Assessment Report or AR4, quoted the *Nature *paper saying that urban sprawl has little to do with rising global temperatures. (Rebecca Terrell)

It’s a good thing they used sites in China as the ones in California would yield a different result. A 2007 paper (“Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends”, Ladochy, Medina, Patzert, Climate Research Vol 33) included this comment:

• “Areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming… Southern California had the highest rates of warming, while the NE Interior Basins division experienced cooling. Large urban sites showed rates over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperatures, and over 5 times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperatures.”*

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s a good thing they used sites in China as the ones in California would yield a different result. A 2007 paper (“Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends”, Ladochy, Medina, Patzert, Climate Research Vol 33) included this comment:

• “Areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming… Southern California had the highest rates of warming, while the NE Interior Basins division experienced cooling. Large urban sites showed rates over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperatures, and over 5 times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperatures*.”

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part3_UrbanHeat_files/image006.jpg

Ender

But but but…That scientist and IPCC told me UH was “insignificant” …

Oh oh oh Wait…maybe it’s called localized weather?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Every wonder why they changed the name from “Anthropogenic Global Warming” to “Climate Change”?

It’s a trick.

“Climate change” is a constant feature of life on planet earth.

So they Re-branded “global warming” as “climate change”.
It is a way of making their scare tactics not falsifiable and thus not refutable by the scientific method. see Popper’s law of falsifiability ]

If global warming is really a threat, then it is precisely global warming, not the amorphous “climate change” that is the problem.

By calling it “climate change” - it reduces it to a pseudo-science and is defined by lack of falsifiability.

It now is much like religion Maybe, that was the intent ] - You can not disprove it - so you can not prove it using empirical scientific evidence techniques.

Climate DOES Change

Actually they have renamed it again. Change might have been seen to be positive. Like that hope stuff. Anyone now it is “Global Climate Disruption” green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/