Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

The point was that you think in terms of “outrageous ties” to people with “outlandish views”, not that you needed to justify your belief that he held “outlandish views”. Hansen might find homeless kids a cheap substitute for turkey at Christmas and it still wouldn’t affect climate science one bit because acceptance of scientific results is not dependent on our agreement with the morals or views of the practitioners but rather on the quality of their work and the results they obtain.

AND then you state below:

There is a huge number of highly motivated and intellectually-equipped people capable of uncovering any attempts to mislead the public, and the best they’ve come up with so far is a Y2K bug in GISTEMP that made an undetectable difference to the outcome.

Just the fact that the BUG was discovered by a non Governmental - non NASA BUT an outside source… Heaven forbid, Mr Hansen’s calculations might be used in a space flight where Astronauts lives might hinge.

If you want to spend your life denigrating people instead of thinking rationally, that’s your choice. I see absolutely no point in arguing with you over whether Hansen’s appearance at a court case means he supports “sabotage” because EVEN IF HE DID it wouldn’t affect the science and if you’re determined to refuse to accept the science for illogical reasons then, as I said, “I hold little hope for change”.

Actually, it does call the question of his science - see below.

Just on this point: I responded to your Delingpole citation with:

“Well, as long as you form opinions about highly respected scientists by copying the opinions of people who are responsible for easily disproved rubbish like blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/ then I hold little hope for change.”

Actually, you are once again…subjectively, speculatively, wrong!!!

I based my oppion NOT on Mr , Delingpoles’s opinion, within his article, but upon the FACTS within his article.

An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the observation is irrelevant to the argument.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

You committed an act of ad hominem. Your attack against Mr Delingpole DOESN’T change the fact that Mr. Hansen lent not only his name but his **organization affiliation **to Mr. Farnish’s book titled.

** Time’s Up!: An Uncivilized Solution to a Global Crisis [Paperback] **

        [Keith Farnish](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Keith-Farnish/e/B00374FD58/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1)                  
          **Keith Farnish**       (Author)     
     **›** [Visit Amazon's Keith Farnish Page](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Keith-Farnish/e/B00374FD58/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1)
     Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
       See [search results](http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_pop_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=books-uk&field-author=Keith%20Farnish) for this author  
     Are you an Author?         [Learn about Author Central](http://authorcentral.amazon.co.uk/ref=ntt_atc_dp_pel_1)         
   
   
    (Author)

What part of the title don’t you understand? The Author himself, titled it an **“Uncivilized Solution” **. Admitting he supports **“Uncivilized Solutions” **.

Mr. Hansen wrote his acceptance / endorsement for **“Uncivilized Solutions” ** written within the book and did so bringing in his affiliations .

Review

  Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the**  'system' **is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel  special interests - they will not look after our and the planet's  well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require  enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, **Columbia University**

bolding mine - But ‘system’ emphasis by Mr. Hansen himself ].
amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X

The **“system” ** he quotes above IS the very same “System” Mr. Farnish writes about… Civilization…democracy.

Product Description

"Time’s Up! proposes something radical, fundamental and frightening; something long-term, exhilarating and absolutely necessary; something totally uncivilized. "

Seems to sum up the author Mr Farnish’s book, ideas, views , call to readers…well.

Helping you to see the difference between Mr Delingpole and Mr. Hansen: Mr Delingpole is a reporter, as such, he wrote an opinion that contained FACTS i.e. Mr Hansen, DID in fact endorse a book by Mr Farnish. Using both his title AND affiliation, as credibility to Mr Farnish’s book. The book calls for **“Uncivilized Solutions” **.

Fact: Mr Delingpole isn’t on the Government dime.

Fact: Mr. Hansen, a Professor in Astronomy, is considered an “authority” in the pseudo-science of AGW AND an employee of Columbia University And NASA which are Government funded.

Fact: Mr. Hansen, on many occasions, has taken up an “activist” role.

Fact: An “activist” gives up “objectivity”. They become sequestered to their “activism” agendas…“Actively” giving up one of scientist’s main roles / strengths - “objectivity” .

Fact: By Mr. Hansen endorsing Mr Farnish’s ideas on **“Uncivilized Solutions” **, Mr Hansen has purposely stepped into the position of a "priest / pope of AGW. " An “Authoritarian” - Preaching, “Thou Shalt do this”…just as Mr. Gore, IPCC, UN, et al.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

continued

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=7716

“If you are keeping your head while others around you are losing theirs, perhaps you’ve misunderstood the whole situation.”

If you keep your head while others around you are losing theirs, perhaps you aren’t buying into the FUD factors of AGW - kimmie

 

[kimmielittle]

continued

Fact: When you step into the role of priest / popehood,…your views, actions and ideas, go directly to the priest /pope’s credibility.

Fact: There is a huge difference between being an “authority of a subject” and an “authoritarian” figure.

Fact: Activism is based upon “subjective”, beliefs.

A scientist gives up “objectivity” , “skepticism”, in their work field, when they replace it with the “subjectivity” of activism, AND even more-so when they turn authoritarian.

This is why Mr. Hansen’s, IMO, “outlandish views and acts” reviewed by me do not fall under “denigrating” OR ad hominem of Mr. Hansen and yours against Mr. Delingpole… ARE ad hominems.

You know what you should be looking at?

Are you trying to become authoritarian, as well???

I told you, after your ad hominem on Mr. Delingpole…you lost any credibility, with me.

As for model graphs produced by AGW’ers, I gave up hope for them when they couldn’t project cooling periods… NOR explain the reasons AFTER the fact, of the model not being able to explain them. “It’s a travesty we can’t” email ].

However, I do find this seems to correlate much better.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=7716

“If you are keeping your head while others around you are losing theirs, perhaps you’ve misunderstood the whole situation.”

If you keep your head while others around you are losing theirs, perhaps you aren’t buying into the FUD factors of AGW - kimmie

 

[kimmielittle]

Science Turns Authoritarian

                          [By Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian](http://www.american.com/author_search?Creator=Kenneth%20P.%20Green%20and%20Hiwa%20Alaghebandian)                      Tuesday, July 27, 2010         
                                                                                                              
                                                                                          Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.

…

In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”
So, objective statements about smoking risk morphed into statements like “science tells us we must end the use of tobacco products.” A finding of elevated risk of stroke from excess salt ingestion leads to: “The science tells us we must cut salt consumption in half by 2030.” Findings that obesity carries health risks lead to a “war on obesity.” And yes, a finding that we may be causing the climate to change morphed into “the science says we must radically restructure our economy and way of life to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically by 2050.”

…

The public’s trust is further undermined by scientific scandals, such as the recent ClimateGate affair, when it became apparent that climate scientists, if not overtly cooking their books, were behaving as partisans out to create a unified perception of the climate in order to advance a policy agenda. The climate community is probably the biggest user of the authoritarian voice, with frequent pronouncements that “the science says we must limit atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to 350 parts per million,” or some dire outcome will eventuate. Friends of the Earth writes, “For example, science tells us we must reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change.” America’s climate change negotiator in Copenhagen is quoted by World Wildlife Fund as saying, “China must do significantly more if we are to have a chance to solve the problem and to arrive at an international agreement that achieves what science tells us we must.” Science as dictator—not a pretty sight.
If science wants to redeem itself and regain its place with the public’s affection, scientists need to come out every time some politician says, “The science says we must…” and reply, “Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.” If they say that often enough, and loudly enough, they might be able to reclaim the mantle of objectivity that they’ve given up over the last 40 years by letting themselves become the regulatory state’s ultimate appeal to authority. Hey, you know, perhaps Biba has something there—maybe science does need better PR!

 

[kimmielittle]

Another authoritarian on AGW

Day 1317
****OF ********FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT ****
****AL GORE’S *****REFUSAL TO TAKE THE ****
"PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE"
*** UPDATE: Hollywood Celebrities Challenged To Take The “Gore Pledge” - In the spirit of Earth Day, Senator Inhofe issued a challenge to all Hollywood global warming activists…To read more, click here. Senator Inhofe discussed his Earth Day challenge to Hollywood and the “Gore Pledge” on Fox and Friends, to watch click here.
U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page
Click Here for Link to Chart
During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on March 21, 2007, “Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming,”former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” to consume no more energy than the average American household
The pledge was presented to Gore by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the hearing, Senator Inhofe showed Gore a frame from Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” where Gore asks viewers:

“Are you ready to change the way you live?”
U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page
Click Here for Link to Chart
Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.
U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page
Click Here for Link to Chart

Of course, Mr Gore points to his use of “Green lines” in procurement of his energy.

It’s the amount of usage, Mr. Gore - not just procurement.

If the National average household were all on the same “green line” Mr. Gore would still be 20 times higher. AND carbon offsets…only for the rich to purchase no guilt sin credits, IMO

 

[kimmielittle]

To whit: “Anonymity is not guaranteed on this blog.”

Actually, Anonymity is not guaranteed on ANY blog…INCLUDING this one.

He does a service, reminding people of that. He isn’t the only person with access to server records…just as with CAF.

I also think it’s admirable that Mr. Watts, after having many sock puppets being used by such as the Met and Universities, has taken a stand on people using government computers / time / servers in AGW camps.

It strikes me that many DO post there with anons

So you think it is right to publicise the fact that you’ve been rooting around in the personal life of your opponent and are not only “outing” them but their family members as well?

Did he? Can you prove he rooted around? He DID report that SOMEONE that knew Mr. Sinclair, TOLD him…

It’s very interesting the sort of behaviour you’re willing to excuse and accept.

Can you point to me endorsing or excusing? I have, throughout these posts here, asked you many times to prove such statements made by you…This is part of the reason you hold no credibility with me.

It’s also interesting what you choose to believe in order to excuse it.

Again, prove I excused it!

What I believed was from what you first linked. I was given nothing more, by you, to state a fact OR excuse. You were a part of me having held that belief. Don’t try to chastise me when you didn’t furnish this new link in the first place.

Here is Watts’ posting where he talks about Sinclair: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

Thank you.

"The description portrayed him as a pretty nice guy with an alternate minded view of the world like a lot of college students have. He is not a college student, though he has a son who is of college age, a nice Ron Paul supporter,I am told from someone who has met him."

Once again.

How you got from that to your “beliefs” that, I assume, you think excuse that behaviour, is beyond me. Given your “beliefs” are obviously false, do you still find it acceptable?

Again, can you provide me with evidence of me excusing OR calling it acceptable? IMO this is going to your credibility base again.

So now you ridicule those who feel genuine and well-founded concern about their ability to speak freely without fear or favour if they make the mistake of posting something on his board that he disagrees with?

This might be true, IF I found your fears genuine and well-founded. IF I don’t - I could call it a number of things hmmmm un-genuine, unfounded, paranoia. IF I had a “genuine and well-founded concern” over anonymity - I wouldn’t even READ their pages which registers my ISP on their private servers, for anyone with Moderator / IT status to see and ping back.

I truly don’t believe a polite post pointing out the problem and defending, politely, your views would get you the attention you state.

Given your record, just in this post I’m answering here, for saying stuff about me, that you can not back up with evidence… I find it hard to believe there isn’t something more going on with your “concerns” about Mr. Watts pages. It strikes me as almost like fear of what Mr Watts et al are reporting. Don’t blame me for believing that, you came on too hard and too strong.

 

[JasonSB]

AND then you state below:

Just the fact that the BUG was discovered by a non Governmental - non NASA BUT an outside source… Heaven forbid, Mr Hansen’s calculations might be used in a space flight where Astronauts lives might hinge.

You know, the Space Shuttle software has always been held up as the Gold Standard in the software development industry. (E.g. this classic article – “The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.”)

It takes a lot of time and costs enormous amounts of money to develop software that bug-free – and yet it still had a “New Year Bug” that would put Hansen to shame!

Hansen’s Y2K error had the following impact:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/GISS_temp_Y2K_adjustment.gif

“Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.” (skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm)

In other words, the error was orders of magnitude less than the claimed accuracy of the data and of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. I bet those responsible for the Mars climate orbiter wished their error was so inconsequential. (Ironically, the Mars Polar Lander mentioned on that page went on to crash as well. Perhaps you should have chosen a different example…)

This is in contrast to Spencer and Christy’s errors, which caused them to change their story from “the satellites say the globe is cooling 0.05 degrees C/decade” to “the satellites are giving exactly the same trend now as GISS”. (Well, I’m not sure if they’ve explicitly stated that, but that’s what their data says.

Have you ever noticed how the scientific method ensures that everyone gradually converges on the right answer? When errors are found and fixed, things that used to be in disagreement come closer into agreement with each other. In this case, of course, it’s GISS’s results that first the satellites, and then the radiosondes, gradually came into agreement with.

Most rational people take that as a pretty strong indication of where the truth lies – because if everybody had errors, there’s no reason to assume that all the different possible errors that they might make using completely different techniques would lead them to the same incorrect conclusion.

This is why the more “reputable” anti-AGW’ers insist that “nobody denies the globe has been warming and that man has something to do with it” and they merely confine themselves to arguments over the finer points of climate sensitivity. Sometimes it’s good to remind them that, actually, quite a lot of people deny those basic facts.

Actually, you are once again…subjectively, speculatively, wrong!!!

I based my oppion NOT on Mr , Delingpoles’s opinion, within his article, but upon the FACTS within his article.

Given the ability to distinguish facts from spin that you have demonstrated so far, you’ll have to forgive me if I fail to see any significance in that.

Hansen said this, Hansen endorsed that, etc., etc., etc…

I’m not interested in arguing the same points over and over again – if it amuses you to do so, I suggest you simply go back and read my earlier responses and just pretend that I inserted them again at this point.

 

[JasonSB]

I told you, after your ad hominem on Mr. Delingpole…you lost any credibility, with me.

And I told you that I take that as a compliment giving the judgement you’ve exhibited to date. Feel free to continue stroking my ego as much as you like.

As for model graphs produced by AGW’ers, I gave up hope for them when they couldn’t project cooling periods…

… despite the fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated that they do. Continuing to argue that black is white merely confirms my opinions.

NOR explain the reasons AFTER the fact, of the model not being able to explain them. “It’s a travesty we can’t” email ].

skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html

However, I do find this seems to correlate much better.

Of course you do. Since you find Willie Soon’s 2005 paper so convincing, perhaps you can explain to me the difference between his graph of solar irradiance and the following one, which confirms the IPCC conclusion that much of the warming until the 1940s was solar-driven but most of the warming since then has been because of the ever-increasing concentrations fo CO2:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_vs_TSI_2009.gif

Why does Soon’s show a strong peak in the 1940s, followed by a big dip in the 1960s, followed by a big rise to 2000, while Solanki’s data shows a rise until about 1960 followed by a gradual decline that is confirmed by the satellite record from 1979 onwards? Lean et al’s data is not exactly the same as Solanki’s but not significantly different and certainly completely different to Soon’s. So which data set is he using?

Why does his solar irradiance range from 1367.5 to 1373 when Solanki’s data shows a range of 1365.2 to 1366.6 and Lean’s a range of 1365.4 to 1368.2 for that period?

Why does he plot CO2 concentration rather than the log of CO2 concentration that physics states is what correlates with temperature – and, as I’ve already shown long ago, correlates very well?

And did you notice that Soon’s paper was about Arctic temperatures and not global temperatures?

And, finally, since you are so concerned about science funding, I assume you’ve diligently traced Soon’s source of funds, right?

 

[JasonSB]

…

This is merely an attempt to shut up those who are most qualified to inform public opinion on the debate.

A scientist loses credibility if he does bad science. This is what has happened to many of those you choose to source information from.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with scientists telling everyone willing to listen what their research has led them to conclude. After all, the Anti-AGW side go to absurd lengths to pretend they have “scientists” on their side – it is disingenous to trot out Michaels and Carter and Lindzen to cast doubt on the science and then say that scientists are being “political” by responding that those criticisms are incorrect.

Now, when scientists go outside their area of expertise – like Hansen does when he advocates a carbon tax, or most signatories of the various “skeptical” petitions do – you are free to give no more weight to their opinion than any other private citizen, but you have no right to say they should not give their opinion.

When it comes to the science of climate change, scientific opinion matters, and we have a right to hear what scientists have to say and they have a right to say it.

When it comes to working out the relative costs of various courses of action then the opinion of economists matters, although the fact that the science of economics makes weather forecasting look certain obviously needs to be taken into account.

When it comes to choosing courses of action, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, including scientists and economists and your next door neighbour. Just because they are scientists does not mean they are no longer citizens. If Hansen wants to advocate a carbon tax, that’s his right. If Michaels wants to argue that no action is needed because unknown future technology will somehow solve the problem before it becomes too serious, that’s his right, too. These are smart guys and we should listen to them on that basis alone, forming opinions about the solutions based on how well their arguments stack up.

Trying to deny Hansen that right while doing nothing about the PR campaigns by right wing think-tanks is censorship, pure and simple. If you want to know the real reason why science is losing credibility in the US, it’s not hard to find.

 

[JasonSB]

Actually, Anonymity is not guaranteed on ANY blog…INCLUDING this one.

There is a difference between the hosts of a blog being able to tell what your IP number is, and the hosts actively using that ability to not only investigate who you are but actually make references to it on the forum if they don’t like what you have to say.

I also think it’s admirable that Mr. Watts, after having many sock puppets being used by such as the Met and Universities, has taken a stand on people using government computers / time / servers in AGW camps.

“Admirable”? This is obviously some new meaning of the word with which I am unfamiliar.

Look, if Watts wants to quiet dissent on his blog by threatening to “out” anybody who disagrees with him, that’s his choice. Just don’t complain if I choose not to post there on that basis.

Did he? Can you prove he rooted around? He DID report that SOMEONE that knew Mr. Sinclair, TOLD him…

Did you not read the article? He explicitly detailed both his research and what he uncovered! The only thing out of that entire post that he claimed came from someone who knew Sinclair was the supposed political leanings of Sinclair’s son.

Now, from most people I would have a hard time believing that they could honestly interpret that one reference to suggest that he did not, in fact, go rooting around to see what he could find out. With you – that’s actually quite believable.

Can you point to me endorsing or excusing?

When I made the claim and called it “Nasty” you responded with:

“Nasty is right…Maybe it would do you good to go to the source. I believe, it was Mr Sinclair who brought his adult “College Student” Son into the picture, between them. Actually, I believe it was Mr Sinclair who was trying to pass himself off as His Son OR a College Student ].”

“Maybe it would do you good to go to the source” suggests that my interpretation of the circumstances is incorrect and I should dig further. Your next two claims suggest that not only have you have done exactly that but that you feel they justify Watts’ comments.

If I’ve misinterpreted that paragraph, feel free to explain what you intended to convey.

I have, throughout these posts here, asked you many times to prove such statements made by you…This is part of the reason you hold no credibility with me.

Sorry, I’ve lost track of all the reasons why I hold no credibility with you, but since all the ones I’ve seen are directly contradicted by the facts I don’t pay too much attention to that.

What I believed was from what you first linked. I was given nothing more, by you, to state a fact OR excuse. You were a part of me having held that belief. Don’t try to chastise me when you didn’t furnish this new link in the first place.

What? You said to me “it would do you good to go to the source” and then proceeded to state two “beliefs” that were unsupported by the source I gave.

Not only that, but the link I gave the first time directly linked to the link I gave the second time.

Perhaps you can explain to me how you intended the following reponse to be interpreted, why you raised the two “beliefs”, and where you got them from in the link I gave:

“Nasty is right…Maybe it would do you good to go to the source. I believe, it was Mr Sinclair who brought his adult “College Student” Son into the picture, between them. Actually, I believe it was Mr Sinclair who was trying to pass himself off as His Son OR a College Student ].”

Again, can you provide me with evidence of me excusing OR calling it acceptable? IMO this is going to your credibility base again.

How about your actual response repeated above?

To paraphrase something I read recently: Can you please direct me to a direct quote, by yourself, that states that you don’t consider that acceptable?

 

[JasonSB]

This might be true, IF I found your fears genuine and well-founded. IF I don’t - I could call it a number of things hmmmm un-genuine, unfounded, paranoia. IF I had a “genuine and well-founded concern” over anonymity - I wouldn’t even READ their pages which registers my ISP on their private servers, for anyone with Moderator / IT status to see and ping back.

I’m less concerned about privacy issues simply by reading WUWT on the basis that although he could tell who I am if he wanted to, he doesn’t know what my views are because I never post there.

No, the actual reason I don’t usually read WUWT is because it hurts my head when I bang it on the desk or slap it with my palm. Those around me also find the occasional outbursts of uncontrollable laughter disconcerting. I prefer to spend my free time either becoming more informed or doing what I can to help others do so. Reading WUWT, and even posting on WUWT, satisfies neither desire.

I truly don’t believe a polite post pointing out the problem and defending, politely, your views would get you the attention you state.

I truly don’t believe a polite post pointing out the obvious problem would do any good. As I said repeatedly, others already have.

I asked you already if I convinced you, because IMHO you are actually pretty representative of the typical WUWT reader. Unfortunately you haven’t answered my question. I take it I have not? QED.

Given your record, just in this post I’m answering here, for saying stuff about me, that you can not back up with evidence…

I hope you can see the irony here.

I find it hard to believe there isn’t something more going on with your “concerns” about Mr. Watts pages. It strikes me as almost like fear of what Mr Watts et al are reporting. Don’t blame me for believing that, you came on too hard and too strong.

Look, I’m going to try to say this kindly: Watts is not exactly a genius. I doubt anybody with any understanding of the science would have any trouble identifying the flaws in most of the posts that appear on his site. As I said in this particular example, just reading the abstract was enough.

The problems are purely and simply as I already stated. I don’t post on RealClimate by and large because it would be preaching to the choir plus the odd troublemaker who isn’t there to learn. I don’t post on WUWT because it’s utterly pointless (those who need convincing are impervious to reason), others already waste their times doing it, and I do not like Watts’ demonstrated behaviour of “outing” those he doesn’t like.

Instead I choose to post here – a place where most scientists wouldn’t bother posting. I am a scientist, and I have always been proud of the modern Catholic stance towards science, defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion, so I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.

So the question arises – why are you so keen to have me spend my limited time on WUWT rather than here?

 

[4elise]

Instead I choose to post here – a place where most scientists wouldn’t bother posting. I am a scientist, and I have always been proud of the modern Catholic stance towards science, defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion, so I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.

I am so grateful for your continued responses on this thread :tiphat:- and as you say the actual Catholic stance toward science is one that is rational - sadly so many Catholics have been influenced by the AEC churches and the flawed theology of me first prosperity - to the point that they can discount what the Church points to as the reason this matters (ALL people around the world) - and why we need take personal action and advocate for policy that will mitigate climate change. :flowers:

 

[John21652]

I don’t post on WUWT because it’s utterly pointless (those who need convincing are impervious to reason), others already waste their times doing it, and I do not like Watts’ demonstrated behaviour of “outing” those he doesn’t like.

Instead I choose to post here – a place where most scientists wouldn’t bother posting. I am a scientist, and I have always been proud of the modern Catholic stance towards science, defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion, so I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.

So the question arises – why are you so keen to have me spend my limited time on WUWT rather than here?

Guess what Jason. I’m a scientist too. Yep. I gre up on and then ran a farm for over thirty years. You know how it is, you become an expert in the weather, and soils and animals and all that. Why I can include the study of a river, mountains, bush, wildlife and a whole lot of other stuff. And guess what else. I was surrounded by lots of other scientists. My next door neighbours, gee, as far as you wanted to travel, I was surounded by people all doing the same thing - studying their environment. Oh, we experienced droughts, floods, and everything in between. You know, in the 1990s and all the way up to the mid 2000s, we even wondered if something terrible had happened, our weather was so fickle and unpredictable. And rain just wouldn’t come. Funny thing happened though, it has all started to come back to normal. We all, yes all, reckon AGW is a crock. Climate change? Yep, it happens. But it happens without us interfering, just as it has in past eons. So no matter how many graphs you print, no matter how many polar bears you count, no matter what your philosophical or theological views are, out here in the real world, all is fine. So give up on the AGW stuff and take heed of your very own sentence, which I underlined for you. Go away and do something about those humungous big filthy nests we call cities. They are your culprits when it comes to waste and pollution. Fix those problems and forget the weather. You’ll live longer!

 

[kimmielittle]

Two of the most ridiculous ad hominems ever written IMHO

Instead I choose to post here – a place where most scientists wouldn’t bother posting. I am a scientist, and I have always been proud of the modern Catholic stance towards science, defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion, so I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.

AND

sadly so many Catholics have been influenced by the AEC churches and the flawed theology of me first prosperity - to the point that they can discount what the Church points to as the reason this matters (ALL people around the world) - and why we need take personal action and advocate for policy that will mitigate climate change.

The first states:

I am a scientist

It is, a stupidly put, appeal to authority. IMO. One fallacy in logic, I wouldn’t expect that a scientist would make

How many times have scientists been wrong?

Why would a scientist need to stoop to logic fallacies. appeal to authority - ad hominems etc - especially debating their pseudo-science unproven hypothesis against a kid ]?

defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion,

This is an attempted ad hominem in disguise…meaning if you don’t believe in AGW …you are an “irrational” Catholic

FACT: AGW depends upon CO2 being the Main driver of climate - AND this is an unproven hypothesis.

continued:

I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians

A shameless attempt to to demean Both American Evangelical Christians AND anyone who disagrees with what has been presented thus far, by the AGW pseudo-science AND it’s “Solutions” issued by the IPCC / UN. actually, I have been aware for quite awhile that JasonSB isn’t an American - though he doesn’t state his country affiliation…so, this is also a another effort to also demean Americans ].

The second parrots the views of the first, and adds another shameful attempted ad hominem AND an “Authoritarian” view.IMO

AEC churches and the flawed theology of me first prosperity - to the point that they can discount what the Church points to as the reason this matters

.

First off, Theology also falls under a pseudo-science criteria…including Catholicism. Because religion isn’t falsifiable you would be hard pressed to prove logically… it is a “flawed theology”. So, this is not only an attempt at ad hominem, but of an attempt at injecting subjective speculation - just as the top post tries to do.

Second: Just what is the criteria for being …and who has the right to judge or try to associate anyone, to a “me first prosperity”? ANYONE who doesn’t agree with your bethinking?

Who deserves Authoritarian status?..Surely, not the authors of these two above paragraphs, IMO.

Here is what one of my Authoritarian Figures answered when I asked, “Father M, is it amoral or unethical not to believe in an unproven hypothesis - such as CO2 being the main driver of climate?”

He said, " Kimmie, we are called to be good stewards of Gods gifts to us. This is the obligation we have. We are not obligated to believe in what is said to drive climate. As a Catholic, you have no more obligation to unproven theories, in this matter, than any other".

I then asked, Father M. “The solutions offered by IPCC are of population control, carbon credits, cap and trade am I amoral or unethical to reject these, as I see population control against Catholic teaching?”

He said “No”.

I continued, “Carbon credits are just a scheme for the rich and cap and trade I see as similar to the World ban on DDT, which hurt the poorest of earths inhabitants for an agenda driven, political science. Many of the poorest of poor children and their families died from malaria because of an unproven science that banned DDT and has just now been unbanned by the World Heath Organization because the science was wrong. In the case of DDT, Father, the science was wrongly pointing to the theory… and that theory had only one point to make - DDT caused X. Had other scientists been able to circumvent the politicization of the “ban DDT movement”, those people would not have suffered and died.”

Continuing on, I said. "With AGW, Father they can not even prove causation effect - CO2 being the main driver of climate. They can’t prove an optimum temperature for life or an optimum level of CO2 needed for life to thrive, in it’s fullest forms. They can’t even find the “missing heat”, as yet…“It’s in the pipeline”, they say. Yet, driven to condemn those who don’t believe that science has even come close to answering these problems as amoral or unethical. And that I’m supposed to respect acts of “civil disobedience”, as a Catholic.

I asked, “Father M, does the ends justify the means”?

He said, “No, not ever”.

He said, “Hearing your points made to each of these, you are neither amoral or unethical, in your stance. It seems that you have explored these issues in depth and I find no fault in your logic. Good job, Kimmie”.

IMO, Some need to step down off their horse, as the AGW movement has enough credibility problems, right now.

 

[kimmielittle]

Guess what Jason. I’m a scientist too. Yep. I gre up on and then ran a farm for over thirty years. You know how it is, you become an expert in the weather, and soils and animals and all that. Why I can include the study of a river, mountains, bush, wildlife and a whole lot of other stuff. And guess what else. I was surrounded by lots of other scientists. My next door neighbours, gee, as far as you wanted to travel, I was surounded by people all doing the same thing - studying their environment. Oh, we experienced droughts, floods, and everything in between. You know, in the 1990s and all the way up to the mid 2000s, we even wondered if something terrible had happened, our weather was so fickle and unpredictable. And rain just wouldn’t come. Funny thing happened though, it has all started to come back to normal. We all, yes all, reckon AGW is a crock. Climate change? Yep, it happens. But it happens without us interfering, just as it has in past eons. So no matter how many graphs you print, no matter how many polar bears you count, no matter what your philosophical or theological views are, out here in the real world, all is fine. So give up on the AGW stuff and take heed of your very own sentence, which I underlined for you. Go away and do something about those humungous big filthy nests we call cities. They are your culprits when it comes to waste and pollution. Fix those problems and forget the weather. You’ll live longer!

:clapping::clapping:

 

[kimmielittle]

Politicized science in the past

junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

1. 
   *] Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt’s 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
   *] Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

1. 
   

     	[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

   *] The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before… In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”

     	[Seattle Times, October 5, 1969]

   *] Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.
   *] William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”
   *] But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.” But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, “As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions … because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.” Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was “a maker of policy.”

     	[Barrons, 10 November 1975]

   *] Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility.

     	[21st Century, Spring 1992]

   *]

 

[kimmielittle]

AND again,

EPA’s Never Ending Dioxin Scare

		Thursday, July      13, 2006

By Steven Milloy

• Print

• 		ShareThis

      	  		      			 				   				   				   				   				       			                                 					** If ever there was an example of what’s wrong with the  intersection of government and science, the Environmental Protection  Agency’s 20-year campaign to scare the public about dioxin is certainly a  leading candidate.**
   		 	  		           			    The EPA slammed into a bureaucratic wall this week when a  National Academy of Sciences panel told the agency to take its dioxin  report back to the drawing board. But the NAS’ rejection of the [EPA](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203421,00.html#) report was handled with kid gloves -- permitting the agency to save face by allowing the dioxin scare to continue indefinitely.
  		     			    “EPA assessment of dioxin understates uncertainty about health  risks and may overstate human cancer risk,” was the headline of the  NAS’ media release announcing (and summarizing) its review of the EPA’s  latest dioxin scaremongering.
  		     			    The NAS said the evidence that dioxin caused [cancer](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203421,00.html#)  in humans was “not strong” and that risk estimates had to be imagined  through use of mathematical models. Despite the acknowledged absence of  evidence linking dioxin with cancer in humans, the NAS panel bizarrely  agreed that dioxin was “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
  		     			    It’s the sort of 2-plus-2-equals-five conclusion that only connoisseurs of regulatory bureaucracy can fully appreciate.
  		     			  				  						 							 						  						 					 						 						 					
    The EPA issued in 2003 a draft report on dioxin alleging that  the substance was 10 times more carcinogenic than the agency previously  claimed -- and some dioxin hysterics had already been calling it the  “most toxic manmade chemical” for which there was “no safe exposure.”
  		     			    These claims were obviously not true since we are all  unavoidably exposed to dioxin everyday -- it’s in our air, food, and  water -- from natural and manmade sources without any health effects  having been credibly detected despite decades and billions of dollars of  [scientific ](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203421,00.html#)research.  The only known health effect from dioxin -- a severe acne-like skin  condition called chloracne -- is caused by unusually high exposures,  such as from an industrial accident or intentional poisoning.
  		     			    To debunk the dioxin scare, JunkScience.com had a sample of  Ben & Jerry’s ice cream tested in 1999 for dioxin -- Ben &  Jerry’s had claimed in one of its “green” marketing campaigns that there  was no safe exposure to dioxin.
  		     			    				 					  						[Full-page *Junk Science* (http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,14,00.html) Archive

  		   We found that a single serving of the Ben & Jerry’s  “World’s Best Vanilla” contained 200 times the level of dioxin that the  EPA said was safe. Our findings -- published in the proceedings of the  20th International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic  Pollutants -- jumped up to 2,000 times the EPA’s “safe” level using the  agency’s risk estimates advocated in its 2003 dioxin report.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203421,00.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Lets see what other scientists say

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere]** hot zone is non-existent.** This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

Bolding mine: Dr Spencer, among many others, also points to this

I have many more

 

[Ender]

Lets see what other scientists say

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere]** hot zone is non-existent.** This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

This point has always seemed rather devastating to me. The IPCC has a chart (AR 4, Appendix C) showing a very specific heat signature that greenhouse warming would cause - there would be a hot spot in the atmosphere roughly over the tropics about 8-14km above the surface. Actual data measurements, however, have found no such heat signature.

I don’t know why this divergence of fact and theory seems to matter so little but it’s not the only point where what was predicted and what has been measured disagree. ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) measurements have been taken for the last 15 years and show the amount of energy radiating into space has been increasing while IPCC computer models all predict it should be decreasing. I guess this would explain why the IPCC can’t find all the heat that is supposed to be in the Earth’s system … it’s been radiated back into space.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ERBE_1.jpg

Ender

 

[Calliso]

Ok about the hotspot first off actually the hotspot isn;t supposed to be THE sign of greenhouse gas related warming. As I understand it that is stratospheric cooling which we have seen. But skeptical science has something on the whole hotspot debate. skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm