It seems we inch closer to an even keel now! I can only add that:Yes, that is what he said. He did not claim that 97% of scientists endorsed MMGW - that claim was made by others, but that is what is now commonly believed…
Ender
That is mostly perfectly fine for you to believe. But note that much of what the Pope said was not to argue the reality and nature of climate change, but our duty to care well for the environment.I suppose Gen. Z is really concerned about climate change/global warming. Here’s what I say: the pope is infallible on teachings on morals and ethics, basically all things concerning our soul and our path towards heaven (even then there have been bad popes, so be careful). If the pope said he supported open borders out of love and compassion that doesn’t mean he’s right. I don’t take what the pope says about climate change seriously since I believe climate change is happening but not because it’s mainly due to humans; I don’t believe it’s of great concern.
It absolutely argues the reality and nature of Climate Change.That is mostly perfectly fine for you to believe. But note that much of what the Pope said was not to argue the reality and nature of climate change, but our duty to care well for the environment.
It doesn’t really Josh since you start with implying I denied something I did not. I noted that our obligation to care for the environment is real, and is also argued in the encyclical. And that is proper regardless of how good or bad a job we are doing.It absolutely argues the reality and nature of Climate Change…
I hope this has helped.
This was the claim I was responding to (post #419):*There are in fact a number of studies finding 97% of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed jounrnals in the climate science space agree with MMGW.It seems we inch closer to an even keel now! I can only add that:
- we (and Cook) don’t care about scientists at large - just “climate scientists”
So, “others” are misqoting Cook and others … twisting the truth … to come to the 97% figure.This was the claim I was responding to (post #419):*There are in fact a number of studies finding 97% of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed jounrnals in the climate science space agree with MMGW.
*This claim is inaccurate. As you pointed out, Cook’s study itself did not make this claim but only asserted that 97% of those who took a position (or, more accurately, were presumed to have taken a position by the investigators) believed in MMGW. That is, 97% of 33%. It just doesn’t carry much weight to say that 32% of climate scientists believe in MMGW.
Ender
This is Ender elaborating on the clarification of the fraudulent mis-statement … Although I have seen this elsewhere, I want to mark it here on CAF for the record.Yes, that is what he said. He did not claim that 97% of scientists endorsed MMGW - that claim was made by others, but that is what is now commonly believed. His best case is that 97% of one third of scientists took that position, even though only about 65 of the scientific papers he analyzed actually said that. The 4,000 number was arrived at by “interpreting” this position from the abstracts. All in all, Cook’s study provides no support for the belief that 97% of climate scientists believe man is responsible for most of the warming we have experienced.
Ender
Very comprehensive statement. Excellent.Start with this fact from Cook’s own summary. In analyzing and categorizing just under 12k studies he found that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW.” So if research papers are used as proxies for scientists why doesn’t that matter? Why are we not justified in using Cook’s own study to insist that 66% of scientists have no position on MMGW?
Of the remaining third, Cook categorized them by the strength of their “endorsement”, including a category called “implicit endorsement.” How many of the 12k evaluated made it to an “explicit endorsement” category? Sixty-four. That includes all the papers in the two (of seven) highest categories: 1 “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
2 “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
Category 3, where the vast bulk of the “97%” live, is “implicit”…as determined by those looking for that outcome. It really is just not possible to take this stuff seriously.
If you find scientists acting acting like politicians is it any surprise that politicians behave less than admirably? I’m shocked.
I’m not sure you realize the connection between SkepticalScience and John Cook.Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook. (Wikipedia)
There is no near unanimous position. That’s a marketing slogan, not a scientific fact. But here are incidents I consider dishonest.
Ender
- The 97% consensus claim.
- Mann’s Hockey Stick
- The distortion of the peer review process
- The “Hide the Decline” chart
- Hiding from/resisting legal FOIA requests
- Various IPCC Assessment Reports ('95 summary written/changed after scientists had left, chart in the 3rd report no one could identify, citation of magazine articles in 5th AR)
- Scientists having to sue the IPCC to get their names removed from the list of “IPCC scientists”… which matters because of:
- The suggestion that every writer or reviewer for the IPCC believes in MMGW.
- The continual “adjustments” to the temperature record that always go only one way.
Fine, assess this.
It is not that the scientists are dishonest (at least most of them are not), it is that the public is getting a very skewed perception of what scientists actually believe. The issue is not only what the scientists believe but what the public believes - and the two are not at all the same.
No, your example is wrong as a climate change analogy.What if 4,000 papers conclude there was bacteria on Mars once, 120 papers say there wasn’t, and another 8,000 papers were not addressing that subject? That’s a closer analogy. Is it OK to say 97% of astronomers addressing the question of bacteria on Mars agree it once existed? I think so.
Important!To be specific, the idea that the rise in temperature since 1850 is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuels - especially since it wasn’t until the 1960s that industry started to emit CO2 in any appreciable quantity - is strained at the most and simply in error in the least. There is a reason why the famous “hockey-stick” graph - which has been debunked - was made to begin when it did; to only illustrate a rise in temperatures. During this time of 167 years there has been numerous periods of warming and cooling. The hottest time of this era, the 1930s, was a time of reduced industry and CO2 emission due to the Great Depression, yet 1938 is the hottest year on record. The correlation between an increase in CO2 and a rise in temperature is, indeed, a myth.
Not exactly.Remember the Pope … as background in science,
The hole in the ozone layer is and was non-existent. It is a seasonal THINNING owing to the confluence of the south polar vortex and the seasonal occurrence of spring.Double posting because I somehow was logged out while editing my first post.
This is opinion, not fact. Here’s one small example: each google search produces the same amount of CO2 as a pot of boiling water, multiply that by the billions of people with internet access who conduct searches multiple times per day, then multiply each day by 365. Consider also the yearly rate of deforestation, which takes away plants whose oxygen offset the CO2 which, by the way warms up the atmosphere. A lot of human activities, such as farming, have changed within the last century in order to be more profitable, while simultaneously producing more greenhouse gases.There are many other examples of activities which accelerate climate change, but you can’t tell me that the hole in the ozone layer isn’t a blatant warning sign to us humans. Scientists have warned that the earth is heading for its sixth mass extinction event, mainly caused by human activity. Climate change also directly endangers humans, as it endangers our food sources, increases our susceptibility to and mortality from various diseases, in addition to directly spreading other diseases. Denial of climate change is really just sticking your head in the sand, and it will endanger you, your children, and your children’s children.
- That was a great red herring.
- You know that human activities and practices have actually altered the environment for the better as well, right? For example that hole in the ozone layer began to close up after CFCs from hairsprays and appliances were banned. Additionally, science has made fantastic strides in new sources of clean energy (hello, jobs!) and reducing waste.
- I highly suggest watching some documentaries and reading scientific literature on the subject with an open mind. Some of these facts I’m spouting I learned from a college class.
- If God gave us this earth, should we not take care of it?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.phpOmitted for length:
Finally {5}, Dobson shows some of the major forces impacting the earth’s atmosphere. Fewer and fewer scientists believe the “ozone hole” theory. Air conditioners, vaccine refrigerators, and Halon fire extinguishers are not threats. Man’s forces are not as powerful as God’s.
So let’s be honest. We should repeal the law that bans CFC manufacture after 1995. The sky is not falling. Technology is not killing us. There is not now and never has been a “hole”. (Just seasonal peaks!) Be of good cheer!! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!
Other References Cited:
Farman, J.C., Gardiner, B.G., & Shanklin, J.D., Nature 315, 207 - 210 (1985).
McElroy, et al., Nature 321, 759-762 (1986)
Stolarski, R.S., Scientific American 258, 30-36, January 1988
First, a colored cartoon is not very scientific.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
NASA disagrees with you when it comes to the ozone. The data show that the ozone was thinning.
Laudato Si’ is a tough read. The encyclical moves (too) easily from principles of morals to opinions about the state of our environment. For example, paragraph 61 makes this shift from delimiting the Church’s legitimate authority to advancing an arguable opinion in just 2 sentences.
- On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views. But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair.
Interspersed among the statements from authority and opinions are irrefutable statements such as 83. One does not ever need to argue that “tyrannical and irresponsible domination” needs to be rejected. This literary device is more often the rhetoric of polemics; not papal encyclicals.
- Here we can add yet another argument for rejecting every tyrannical and irresponsible domination of human beings over other creatures.
Strawman. It was an analogy to the Cook analysis of what proportion of climate science papers addressing the question of cause concluded human causes rather than something else.No, your example is wrong as a climate change analogy
Strawman. It was an analogy to the Cook analysis of what proportion of climate science papers addressing the question of cause concluded human causes rather than something else.
According to some, we ought soon to hear from that “majority” (?) of climate scientists aghast that the general population has accepted the “conclusion” that humans are driving climate change. Surely they will want to correct our understanding, and the claims made about the position of climate scientists? I would love to hear from them too - but I’m not anticipating this. You say the climate scientists are being misrepresented - So where is the outcry from the climate scientists themselves? It is nowhere.