M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Science is NOT about belief.
Belief is NOT about science.
Science is reproducible results.
Otherwise … it is iffy, at best.
jir.com/
- Status
Belief is NOT about science.
Science is reproducible results.
Otherwise … it is iffy, at best.
jir.com/
T
triumphguy
Guest
You seemed to infer that post that it was about cost, not science.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Of course it is about belief…about whether you believe the scientists are competent and trustworthy! If you don’t, it really doesn’t matter how many times they reproduce their results or who reviews their conclusions, you still won’t believe them…which I think this thread demonstrates abundantly. It is not as if any of us have the time, expertise, or money to do enough of this research ourselves to make an argument one way or the other!
As evidence, I will point out that 20 posts ago I asked if anyone at all had changed their minds as a result of all the “evidence” flying around this thread, all of which I gather satisfied the original posters to be examples of “reproducible results” that could be taken as evidence in support of their position.
No bites so far…
A few posts back I saw the graphs dragged out.
We have all seen them, the ones that purport to show temperatures all the way back into the 1800’s to a tenth of a degree accuracy.
I have asked many times, but satisfactory answers just never seem to be there.
I thought that being able to accurately measure the temperature (tenths of a degree accurate) of the planet was a fairly recent achievement. By what method did the science of the 1800’s accomplish this?
How can we believe in its accuracy?
How could they compensate for those many areas of the planet yet to be seen or measured?
We have all seen them, the ones that purport to show temperatures all the way back into the 1800’s to a tenth of a degree accuracy.
I have asked many times, but satisfactory answers just never seem to be there.
I thought that being able to accurately measure the temperature (tenths of a degree accurate) of the planet was a fairly recent achievement. By what method did the science of the 1800’s accomplish this?
How can we believe in its accuracy?
How could they compensate for those many areas of the planet yet to be seen or measured?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You’d be surprised then to know that they have good guessimates based on proxy data for the temps 55 mill yrs ago and even 251 mya… which they say was about 6C warmer than today, during which most of life on earth died out.
Of course now the situation is quite different, since we are causing thie warming 100 times faster than in the past, within a couple hundred years rather than 20,000years. And there is no analog for that. Brave new world, here we come flying blind into the cliff of death.
In a way the posters here are right – the scientists don’t really know how bad it will be.
But I have an idea. Since it is due to human profligacy, greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, obstinate wrong-headedness, and evil-heartedness (the true climate forcings of our time, behind our inordinate GHG emissions) – indicating we really lust very strongly for Hell – God may deign to grant us hell on earth, and then for eternity.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I would be stunningly surprised.
Seriously … what is a “good guesstimate”? The weather people refer to what they do as a WAG … a Wild A** Guess … and that’s about it.
But for science?
I don’t think so , Tim.
And the Chinese have accounts of sun spot activity from 3000 years ago or so. *
But not very scientific.***
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
But of course, Hell is only for AGW denialists, right lynnvinc? You and your environmentally enlightened cohorts like AlGore will be in Heaven laughing it up, fist-bumping with God, “See, I tried to tell them…over and over and over…”In a way the posters here are right – the scientists don’t really know how bad it will be.
But I have an idea. Since it is due to human profligacy, greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, obstinate wrong-headedness, and evil-heartedness (the true climate forcings of our time, behind our inordinate GHG emissions) – indicating we really lust very strongly for Hell – God may deign to grant us hell on earth, and then for eternity.
Hey but wait! If we in the US aren’t really causing global warming (temperatures AREN’T going up, and this is according to your precious climate scientists) then the whole theory falls apart, doesn’t it?
I know you have me on ignore, but the others can read this so I’m posting it anyway. Ignore me all you want, but I’m writing the truth and you can’t take it.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Perhaps she was only saying that gluttony committed when there is plenty instead of gluttony that adds to someone else’s want is still gluttony, even if it is not as serious in its effects.But of course, Hell is only for AGW denialists, right lynnvinc? You and your environmentally enlightened cohorts like AlGore will be in Heaven laughing it up, fist-bumping with God, “See, I tried to tell them…over and over and over…”
Hey but wait! If we in the US aren’t really causing global warming (temperatures AREN’T going up, and this is according to your precious climate scientists) then the whole theory falls apart, doesn’t it?
I know you have me on ignore, but the others can read this so I’m posting it anyway. Ignore me all you want, but I’m writing the truth and you can’t take it.
A fair question, however, is whether or not other solutions being proposed are less consuming, or whether they are only consuming in different ways that unnecessarily use resources in different ways, ways that might have unjust effects of their own.
I’ve run across a lot of Catholic who believe alternative energy sources are very important for good stewardship of the Earth and lots of others who do not believe that alternative energy is usually anything but self-delusion, but I can think of very few who don’t think God cares whether or not they live a wasteful life. I don’t think that is what is at issue here at all, which is why good Catholics are found on both sides of the question. With regards to marriage, I think the main question is whether or not this topic is going to cause friction with regards to how you run your household and whether you can talk about politics in a civilized manner.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Where did “cost” come from in my post … I said nothing about “cost”.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That all depends. If those who accept AGW are into other mortal sins then they too may get the chance to go to Hell.
And oridnary AGW skeptics, I’m thinking, probably won’t go to Hell simply for falling for denialist industry spiel. However, if they work really hard at convincing others not to accept AGW and not to mitigate it, then their chances may improve. Those in the denialist industry…that’s a way different story. They are probably lost.
However, there is always mercy and healing and redemption in the blood of Christ, even for the very worst denialist industry henchmen.
T
triumphguy
Guest
F
fbl9
Guest
As a farmer I can say the last 4.5 yrs. have been extremely wet, this spring seeding is up to three weeks behind normal.
On normal years our area tends to be dry.
What would the farmers south of me have to say about global warming?
Maybe it’s age, but in summer the sun does feel hotter. more intense, would a better way to describe it… I have no pollution to deal with either.
On normal years our area tends to be dry.
What would the farmers south of me have to say about global warming?
Maybe it’s age, but in summer the sun does feel hotter. more intense, would a better way to describe it… I have no pollution to deal with either.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Yes, yes, yes … mixing apples and oranges … got it.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Everywhere I have lived and/or worked, rainfall runs in cycles.
Texas and Australia have a roughly 50-year cycle [and there are many different cycles].
Parts of the Northeast U.S. run in a ten year cycle … which appears to correspond to the solar sun spot cycle.
You might want to ask your local school system to develop a science project … to track back as far as newspaper accounts have records to see when droughts occur and/or also times of peak rainfall.
After noting when the various peaks and valleys occur, then check with comparable solar sun spot cycles. There are very good records of sun spot cycles going back 250 years … they are on the internet.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The expected general pattern in a globally warming world is for more precipitation (more rain, and in cold winters, more snow), because warming air holds more moisture – it sucks it out of plants and soil, dessicating them, and out of water bodies. Then under certain weather conditions releases that water vapor in more severe weather events – deluges, blizzards, hail storms (which are expected to become more frequent).
The larger regional pattern expected is that there will be much more precip (and severe precip events and flooding) in the higher latitudes (e.g., N. Europe, northern U.S., Canada, etc) and less precip in lower latitudes, and in some situations deluges and flooding in the midst of droughts.
RE the heat patterns - the higher latitudes are warming up faster than the lower latitudes. Winter is warming faster than summer, and minimum diurnal (night) temps faster than maximum diurnal (day) temps. This latter bids ill for many plants, crops, and people, since after very heat stressful days, they require cool nights to recouperate. That the nights are also warming under our enhanced greenhouse effect (and warming faster) is thought to have contributed to the high death toll of over 30,000 people in the 2003 European summer heatwave. I don’t know about other crops, but I read its a similar thing for rice paddy in S. and S.E. Asia – right now the warmer weather is helping the crops, while the warmer night temps are harming them, with no net effect; but after 2050 it is expected that both the day and night higher temps will be harming the rice paddy.
See: Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33):14562-14567.
These patterns might to be very noticeable at this point, except to old farmers who have been around, but this is just the beginning. It’s expected to get much worse. Unfortunately by the time the skeptics on CAF come to realize it’s real, it will be too late to turn back, as positive feedbacks will set in and increase the warming even if we decide to mitigate.
Children playing with matches in an explosives factory comes to mind…
T
triumphguy
Guest
The Inuit in northern Canada’s Arctic say they have no memory of the weather being this warm and the ice receding so much ever.
However, at one time Greenland was called Greenland because it was … green.
and Newfoundland was called Vineland by the Vikings because there were wild grapes, but not anymore - it’s cold and rocky now
Is this climate change man made - well pouring billions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere year after year, while cutting down the lungs of the world has to have some effect.
However, at one time Greenland was called Greenland because it was … green.
and Newfoundland was called Vineland by the Vikings because there were wild grapes, but not anymore - it’s cold and rocky now
Is this climate change man made - well pouring billions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere year after year, while cutting down the lungs of the world has to have some effect.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You raise a good point – whether minds can be changed, which is what the OP may be interested in.Of course it is about belief…about whether you believe the scientists are competent and trustworthy! If you don’t, it really doesn’t matter how many times they reproduce their results or who reviews their conclusions, you still won’t believe them…which I think this thread demonstrates abundantly. It is not as if any of us have the time, expertise, or money to do enough of this research ourselves to make an argument one way or the other!
As evidence, I will point out that 20 posts ago I asked if anyone at all had changed their minds as a result of all the “evidence” flying around this thread, all of which I gather satisfied the original posters to be examples of “reproducible results” that could be taken as evidence in support of their position.
No bites so far…
I can say it would be extremely hard to change my mind, since I am striving to avoid the “false negative” of failing to mitigate a true problem. In other word, I don’t need 95% confidence AGW is real, to mitigate it. I don’t even need more than 10% confidence. The problem is quite serious.
We buy insurance for our homes, even tho there may only be a 5% chance it will be extremely harmed beyond our huge deductible…bec it is usually one of our largest assets (and we don’t want to be stuck with 20 years of mortgage payments on something burnt to the crisp).
Well, AGW is projected to have even more serious consequences that home damage – the lost of tremendous number of human lives, and lives of others of God’s creation.
Scientists may need 95% confidence to make a claim (and first studies reached 95% confidence on AGW in 1995 – .06 on the null for summer temps and .04 on the null for winter temps), bec they cannot risk their reputations, they can’t afford to be the boy who called wolf when they was no wolf.
We on the other hand cannot afford to be the villagers who get eaten up by the wolf (or cause others to be eaten up by the wolf). You’d think.
So I will not stop accepting that AGW is real unless there is 95% certainty it is not real – e.g., the global average temp goes back down down pre-1960s and stays there for several decades (by which time I won’t be here anyway).
However, there is no one here who can make me stop mitigating AGW no matter if all the scientists say AGW is not happening. Bec I’m saving so much money and mitigating a host of other problems that harm and kill others. Try as you might you cannot make me stop turning off lights not in use and the 100s of other things I do. I’m just stubborn
Mark121359
Well-known member
But of course, Hell is only for AGW denialists, right lynnvinc? You and your environmentally enlightened cohorts like AlGore will be in Heaven laughing it up, fist-bumping with God, “See, I tried to tell them…over and over and over…”
This is absolutely ludicrous! You’re kidding…right? I hope you have your tongue firmly planted in cheek, but somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I must have missed that section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that warned that I may be banished to hell for not believing in, or for convincing others not to believe in AGW!
Peace, Mark
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
No, Mark, I’m afraid lynnvinc is completely serious on this issue. Her judgment against others has been pronounced on this thread and many others having to do with AGW, and no facts will ever change her mind. Nothing can penetrate her belief, it’s like Jesus’ garment - seamless.This is absolutely ludicrous! You’re kidding…right? I hope you have your tongue firmly planted in cheek, but somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I must have missed that section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that warned that I may be banished to hell for not believing in, or for convincing others not to believe in AGW!
Peace, Mark
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is what Pope Benedict wrote in 2010 (boldface mine, and the whole address is well worth reading):
*"…Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development…
…To be sure, among the basic problems which the international community has to address is that of energy resources and the development of joint and sustainable strategies to satisfy the energy needs of the present and future generations. This means that technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency. At the same time there is a need to encourage research into, and utilization of, forms of energy with lower impact on the environment and “a world-wide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them”.[20] The ecological crisis offers an historic opportunity to develop a common plan of action aimed at orienting the model of global development towards greater respect for creation and for an integral human development inspired by the values proper to charity in truth. I would advocate the adoption of a model of development based on the centrality of the human person, on the promotion and sharing of the common good, on responsibility, on a realization of our need for a changed life-style, and on prudence, the virtue which tells us what needs to be done today in view of what might happen tomorrow…[21]"*
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 2010
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
*"…Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development…
…To be sure, among the basic problems which the international community has to address is that of energy resources and the development of joint and sustainable strategies to satisfy the energy needs of the present and future generations. This means that technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency. At the same time there is a need to encourage research into, and utilization of, forms of energy with lower impact on the environment and “a world-wide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them”.[20] The ecological crisis offers an historic opportunity to develop a common plan of action aimed at orienting the model of global development towards greater respect for creation and for an integral human development inspired by the values proper to charity in truth. I would advocate the adoption of a model of development based on the centrality of the human person, on the promotion and sharing of the common good, on responsibility, on a realization of our need for a changed life-style, and on prudence, the virtue which tells us what needs to be done today in view of what might happen tomorrow…[21]"*
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 2010
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
- Status