Do you believe in global warming?

[aspirant]

The OP is “do you believe in global warming”

…in the Family Life forum as a lead in to the question “What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?” If you want to argue about why you think as you do, and whether people should, without any reference to what it means for romantic partners, I think that’s what the Back Fence is for. This forum is about Family Life.

The implied question is “do you believe in man-made global warming”

It wasn’t “implied” but explicit. The second lead-in question was “If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?”

The ultimate question was “What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?” which is a question appropriate to this forum. Your arguments aren’t about that, and seem better suited to Back Fence.

global warming and global cooling are natural and normal

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that all global climate changes are anthropogenic. Personally, I think that would be ridiculous. But, again, it’s a topic for another forum.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

…in the Family Life forum as a lead in to the question “What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?” If you want to argue about why you think as you do, and whether people should, without any reference to what it means for romantic partners, I think that’s what the Back Fence is for. This forum is about Family Life.

It wasn’t “implied” but explicit. The second lead-in question was “If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?”

The ultimate question was “What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?” which is a question appropriate to this forum. Your arguments aren’t about that, and seem better suited to Back Fence.

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that all global climate changes are anthropogenic. Personally, I think that would be ridiculous. But, again, it’s a topic for another forum.

It’s also about conflicting beliefs.

 

[lynnvinc]

It depends on how long of a time period you’re looking at. youtu.be/JpfMM3bVbhQ?t=2m40s

And who’s making the claims: desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter

 

[EasterJoy]

This is an excellent video. Of course the people whose minds are made up will pay no attention, or they will accuse that all of these people have been paid off by the oil companies.

And where are these people…the ones who haven’t made up their minds, one way, the other, or clearly in the middle?

 

[EasterJoy]

…The ultimate question was “What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?” which is a question appropriate to this forum. Your arguments aren’t about that, and seem better suited to Back Fence…

I’d say the answer is:
a) Would what this person thinks on this topic change your opinions of him or her?
AND
b) Regardless of what you think, would your opinion on the topic change his/her opinion of you?
AND
c) Is what each you thinks about what the other one thinks important to you?

On some topic, at least, the answer to (c) will be yes for at least one of you. Don’t let anyone fool you about that one! Two people who believe that neither could possibly differ on any important topic whatsoever in any important way are probably mutually infatuated, but at least somebody is either delusional or semi-catatonic. The only question is whether one or both of you consider the topic of global warming and possible human contributions to be one of those important topics. There are certainly happily-married Catholic couples who combine just about every combination of opinions on this. The difference with the ones who differ but are happy is that this is a topic they have decided they are willing to be mutually tolerant about.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Kind of an open-ended question, begging for discussion.

Anyway, this e-newsletter TWTW available at ww.sepp.org ]arrived a few minutes ago … here is a summary of the main point:

**
USGCRP: In January, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) issued a Draft Climate Assessment Report that was laden with hyperbole and false statements. This immediately brought up the question why such a flawed report was issued? Was it tight budgets, or was it to serve the purpose of political persuasion. According to the web site, the FY 2012 budget request was $2.6 billion – a 6.3% increase over FY 2011. So it shouldn’t be the lack of money.

Patrick Michaels wrote he is submitting detailed comments. SEPP limited its comments to less than two pages. The comments identified six statements in the first 30 lines of the Executive Summary that were either trivial or false.

An example of a trivial statement was: “Climate change is already affecting the American people.” The statement is trivial. Climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will continue to do so long after we are gone. It has been affecting the American people since the colonies were started and the country founded during the Little Ice Age.

An example of a false statement was: “Oceans are becoming more acidic.” False. The oceans remain alkaline with a pH above 7. Some studies claim that the pH has declined by a particular amount, but such claims are based more on speculative models than empirical investigation.

The comments point out that the report falls apart because it relies on projections from climate models. The models are failing because the surface has not warmed for 17 years (Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit data) and the atmosphere has not warmed for a decade (UAH data). This is inconsistent with projections (predictions) from the models. Further, the 34 year satellite temperature record shows the warming is concentrated in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, roughly 60 degrees north latitude, with little or no warming elsewhere. There is no corresponding warming of the Antarctic, instead the Antarctic is cooling. Contrary to the models, there is no pronounced warming trend in the atmosphere above the tropics.

The comments conclude with the statement: The current document may be politically important, but it is scientifically trivial. As such, it is political propaganda that fails to meet the financial reporting standards of corporations, much less the more, hopefully, stringent standards of scientific evaluation.

If the purpose of the draft report was political persuasion, then it succeeded in some part. Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used it in an article calling alarm over global warming/climate change.

All this raises questions as to the scientific integrity of the USGCSP whose motto is: Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science. The agencies are Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health & Human Services, Interior, State, Transportation, EPA, NASA, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, and AID. According to its web site in FY 2011 the USGCSP agencies contributed $1,995,642 to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and total US Government contributions were $2,682,845.

Please see quote of the week, links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up and
globalchange.gov/about/b…**

 

[lynnvinc]

I’d say the answer is:
a) Would what this person thinks on this topic change your opinions of him or her?
AND
b) Regardless of what you think, would your opinion on the topic change his/her opinion of you?
AND
c) Is what each you thinks about what the other one thinks important to you?

On some topic, at least, the answer to (c) will be yes for at least one of you. Don’t let anyone fool you about that one! Two people who believe that neither could possibly differ on any important topic whatsoever in any important way are probably mutually infatuated, but at least somebody is either delusional or semi-catatonic. The only question is whether one or both of you consider the topic of global warming and possible human contributions to be one of those important topics. There are certainly happily-married Catholic couples who combine just about every combination of opinions on this. The difference with the ones who differ but are happy is that this is a topic they have decided they are willing to be mutually tolerant about.

Very good answer.

And it really seems to me not to be a big problem if they disagree on global warming, as long as they agree that stewardship of God’s creation is good, or failing that, that saving money is good & not usessly wasting it with no benefit at all, not even splurge-fun.

We had a little environmental committee at my old parish (from about 1992 to 2002 when we moved away). In the late 90s a person joined and that same month I suggested that we have our next program on global warming (we had had programs on all sorts of topics – pesticides harm, composting, acid rain, recycling, etc, but this would be the first on global warming). She said she didn’t believe in global warming and she was against it. We got into a hot argument – a “hissy fight” as she fondly referred to it later.

Finally I splurted out – well, it doesn’t really matter, because the same things that mitigate global warming also mitigate a host of other environmental (and financial) problems. For instance, we could do it on water conservation, and since water requires energy to pump and heat it (usually fossil fuel energy), conserving it not only saves water and money, but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution.

She loved the idea and we went ahead with it, becoming friends with one area we agreed to disagree on. We had an “April Showers” program at our church, getting the kids & families involved, spreading ideas on how to conserve water. We later went on to found a charitable conservation program for our city. She went to the Water Dt, and found out our water table had gone down 800 feet in the 100 years of its use, and they were really worried about our water depletion. Who knew? We bought low-flow showerheads and other water-saving devices whole-sale, created a packet and brochure, put them in the Water Dept at City Hall, asking for a $10 donation (the cost of the packet) so we could continue the campaign. We started with a city seed money grant to buy the initial supplies.

I moved away before our next project, which was to be energy efficiency. But anyway I can say that my $6 low-flow showerhead (which we bought in 1990, did a bucket/stopwatch test and found it saved half the hot water & we could not tell the differece) has saved us $2300 in the ensuing 23 years in water and gas/electricity to heat the water. I don’t think bank interest or the stock market (as a whole) does that well.

And nearly every other global warming mitigation measure we have implemented over the past 23 years has likewise not cost, saved $$ immediately or in the short-run or long-run, reducing our GHGs by over 60% and saved us many $1000s, and will be saving us on into the future. Our Volt (which is run on our 100% wind-powered electricity) will be paying the difference between it and the car hubby wanted within 6.5 years and go on to save us over $1000 a years. And I’m not even counting that we’ve lived within 1 or 2 miles of work for the 44 years of our marriage. And now we’re planning our solar panels, which will cut our electric bill in half and save and save – about a 12.5% return on investment.

We are sitting pretty financially now with all those savings on into the future, well-poised for retirement. And that also reduces marital strife, which we all know can flare up over money issues.

And my husband is not into the global warming issue one way or the other. Bec he hears me talk about it a lot, he tells me everyone else in America is into it, and I argue with him that’s not the case and he tells me everyone will be into it once they learn about it, and to shut up And that’s about the extent of our marital strife

 

[EasterJoy]

…it really seems to me not to be a big problem if they disagree on global warming, as long as they agree that stewardship of God’s creation is good, or failing that, that saving money is good & not usessly wasting it with no benefit at all, not even splurge-fun…

Exactly. It does not need to matter that one composts and recycles and lives as simply as possible with the belief that this will save the earth, while the other does so only because he or she cannot stand wastefulness. That can describe a very serene household, and even one with some good-natured teasing back and forth. What causes the problems is when one spouse is in love with everything disposable while the other one’s blood pressure rises whenever someone forgets to bring their own bag to the grocery store or has aluminum foil and Saran Wrap in their shopping cart, or when one would waste an hour of her time (and hence, the couple’s time) in order to save enough gas to drive her hybrid mini two miles, while the other insists on using the biggest payload pickup on the domestic market for his commuting vehicle so he can have it to haul a travel trailer on a hunting trip once a year.* That* can be asking for real trouble!

 

[lynnvinc]

…while the other insists on using the biggest payload pickup on the domestic market for his commuting vehicle so he can have it to haul a travel trailer on a hunting trip once a year.* That* can be asking for real trouble!

Why doesn’t he just rent such a big vehicle once a year, and do with an economy car the rest of the time…saving money, thereby reducing marital strife…and if he has a tad of conscience, reducing guilt about causing local, regional, and global pollution that harms people.

I do get on my husband’s case about small stuff now and then (e.g., he nearly always forgets to take reusable shopping bags when he goes alone), but since he goes along with me on the big stuff – Sunfrost frig (sunfrost.com ), Chevy Volt, solar panels – that really saves a lot of money, while reducing our harm to the environment, I back off as soon as I see he’s getting irritated, thankful he is at least into saving money, and that he is even a tad proud for reducing environmental harm…even informing others about environmental measures now & then.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Exactly. It does not need to matter that one composts and recycles and lives as simply as possible with the belief that this will save the earth, while the other does so only because he or she cannot stand wastefulness. That can describe a very serene household, and even one with some good-natured teasing back and forth. What causes the problems is when one spouse is in love with everything disposable while the other one’s blood pressure rises whenever someone forgets to bring their own bag to the grocery store or has aluminum foil and Saran Wrap in their shopping cart, or when one would waste an hour of her time (and hence, the couple’s time) in order to save enough gas to drive her hybrid mini two miles, while the other insists on using the biggest payload pickup on the domestic market for his commuting vehicle so he can have it to haul a travel trailer on a hunting trip once a year.* That* can be asking for real trouble!

Yeah, but when her little golf cart hybrid breaks down, he can go pick it up and throw it in the back of the pickup to bring it home…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

For the benefit of any couples who are dating and may be encountering some incompatibility issues over global warming, here is a relevant article to read:

reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

climate-slowdown

The theory goes out the window

Desperately seeking to backtrack to find something to salvage.

Desperately seeking superior theory

 

[TheRealJuliane]

For the benefit of any couples who are dating and may be encountering some incompatibility over the global warming issue, here is a relevant article to read:

reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

climate-slowdown

The theory goes out the window

Desperately seeking to backtrack to find something to salvage.

Desperately seeking superior theory

Climate Scientists Determine that Prius and Volt Owners Have Stopped Global Warming!

Future Means of Controlling Populations Using Fear Tactics Is Subject of Emergency Conference: Global Warming Hoax Is No Longer Working!

Climate Scientists Insists That SUVs DID Exist in the Previously Hidden Medieval Warming Period, Since There Was Warming

The Smart People’s Brains Are the Cause of Global Warming, Says Noted Climate Scientist

And What About Greenland, Anyway??

 

[EasterJoy]

Has anyone replying to this thread actually done any scientific research? Know any actual scientists? For some reason, there seems to be this concept that scientists who get data that they didn’t expect would think this is the end of the world. Those bad self-important scientists would be plotting to murder the innocent schlep who “proved them wrong”–"I had to kill him, don’t you see, he was going to ruin my life’s work!"–like it was an episode out of Columbo. This is simply not the way that scientists are, particularly when it is not their own personal research that is bringing back results that were unexpected. Old scientists, actually, get a little rush out of weird results, because they’ve been around long enough to realize that you never find out anything exciting without a real head-scratching result or an insoluble-seeming problem to challenge your thinking.

When research brings back results that are all over the map, the first thing you ask yourself is whether or not you made a mistake in gathering your data, either this batch or some previous batches. That is what you really don’t want, but there is no good trying to cover up. The truth will out; you can’t put the whole planet in a bottle and refuse to let other people look at it. When you and your colleagues have gone to the trouble of looking at climate evidence going back hundreds and even thousands of years, though, by dozens of different research groups, in dozens of different countries, and in dozens of different ways, though, a decade or two that you didn’t see coming ten or twenty years ago is a head-scratcher, you realize that there may be textbooks in twenty years that see things very differently, but it doesn’t turn your world upside down.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why doesn’t he just rent such a big vehicle once a year, and do with an economy car the rest of the time…saving money, thereby reducing marital strife…and if he has a tad of conscience, reducing guilt about causing local, regional, and global pollution that harms people.

I do get on my husband’s case about small stuff now and then (e.g., he nearly always forgets to take reusable shopping bags when he goes alone), but since he goes along with me on the big stuff – Sunfrost frig (sunfrost.com ), Chevy Volt, solar panels – that really saves a lot of money, while reducing our harm to the environment, I back off as soon as I see he’s getting irritated, thankful he is at least into saving money, and that he is even a tad proud for reducing environmental harm…even informing others about environmental measures now & then.

Yeah, but when her little golf cart hybrid breaks down, he can go pick it up and throw it in the back of the pickup to bring it home…

Whether we think the husband ought to have the pickup, though, I think we all agree: the most important issue is not the pickup. The issue is whether the pickup–whether he has it or does not get to have it or decides not to have it–is going to get between the husband and the wife.

You don’t save the planet by contracting marriages that are doomed to self-destruct. As Steven Covey put it, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” You have to marry someone for whom you will always make your marriage to him or her your main thing, come global warming or high water or reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that one or both of you did not see coming. Only God should come before your spouse, and truly putting God first will always put your spouse far ahead of where they would be if he or she had been “first” and God had been put “second.”

We are frail creatures, though, and should not ask too much of ourselves. Seek compatibility when you seek a spouse, and do not overestimate your generosity of heart. Marriage is harder than people bargain for in the best of cases.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Has anyone replying to this thread actually done any scientific research? Know any actual scientists? For some reason, there seems to be this concept that scientists who get data that they didn’t expect would think this is the end of the world. Those bad self-important scientists would be plotting to murder the innocent schlep who “proved them wrong”–“I had to kill him, don’t you see, he was going to ruin my life’s work!”–like it was an episode out of Columbo. This is simply not the way that scientists are, particularly when it is not their own personal research that is bringing back results that were unexpected. Old scientists, actually, get a little rush out of weird results, because they’ve been around long enough to realize that you never find out anything exciting without a real head-scratching result or an insoluble-seeming problem to challenge your thinking.

When research brings back results that are all over the map, the first thing you ask yourself is whether or not you made a mistake in gathering your data, either this batch or some previous batches. That is what you really don’t want, but there is no good trying to cover up. The truth will out; you can’t put the whole planet in a bottle and refuse to let other people look at it. When you and your colleagues have gone to the trouble of looking at climate evidence going back hundreds and even thousands of years, though, by dozens of different research groups, in dozens of different countries, and in dozens of different ways, though, a decade or two that you didn’t see coming ten or twenty years ago is a head-scratcher, you realize that there may be textbooks in twenty years that see things very differently, but it doesn’t turn your world upside down.

I have no idea what you are trying to get across here, EasterJoy.

When data is FALSIFIED for political and monetary gain, THAT’S NOT SCIENCE. However you want to portray it, when data is purposely IGNORED, that’s NOT SCIENCE. When there is an agenda driven by a conviction, and the science is done to prove that conviction, that’s NOT SCIENCE.

One doesn’t have to be a scientist or know any scientists to be able to think clearly about scientific principles. But yes, as a matter of fact, I do know some scientists.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Here are a bunch of 'em:

oism.org/pproject/

 

[EasterJoy]

I have no idea what you are trying to get across here, EasterJoy.

When data is FALSIFIED for political and monetary gain, THAT’S NOT SCIENCE. However you want to portray it, when data is purposely IGNORED, that’s NOT SCIENCE. When there is an agenda driven by a conviction, and the science is done to prove that conviction, that’s NOT SCIENCE.

One doesn’t have to be a scientist or know any scientists to be able to think clearly about scientific principles. But yes, as a matter of fact, I do know some scientists.

Why are you shouting? Have you found me to be so deaf as that, in the past?

I am saying that there is clear difference between what you’ll hear about this from Fox or Forbes or the mainstream “liberal” media than what you hear from scientists. The climatologists and meteorologists are not jumping off of buildings over the revelation that somebody falsified their data. Like Catholic priests, they are mostly hoping they can get through airports without someone in the public recognizing them and spitting on them…such is the clarity with which the general public thinks when something like this comes up.

Here are a bunch of 'em:

oism.org/pproject/

Note that the objection is not to the science, but to the political ends the science is being used to rationalize. Do not think that every political drive that uses science as its purported raison d’etre has all the scientists behind it. A person can be the scientist who is doing the research, he can be brilliant and thorough and absolutely right about what his mountains of data say about the physical state the world is in, but this does not make him an expert on what the government ought to do about it, or all the things that will happen if his advice is followed. Big difference!

Two married scientists can be in absolute agreement about what the science says and still be 180 degrees apart when it comes to the political and social implications of that information. The main thing they need to agree about, though, is how their own household is to run, regardless of what supplies the reasons.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

“anthropogenic global warming” is based on falsified / cherry picked data fed through a faulty computer model.

As part of the cover-up, the original data was deliberately thrown out. AND we have ten years worth of emails … a thousand or so … plainly and clearly showing how they conducted the hoax.

AND, now, finally, the alleged scientists are conceding that the whole house of cards is collapsing … there has been NO global warming, even though the carbon dioxide continues to rise … more than 15 years worth of non-correlation, which is not supposed to be the case with AGW.

There is no good face anyone can put on that bad science.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why are you shouting? Have you found me to be so deaf as that, in the past?

I am saying that there is clear difference between what you’ll hear about this from Fox or Forbes or the mainstream “liberal” media than what you hear from scientists. The climatologists and meteorologists are not jumping off of buildings over the revelation that somebody falsified their data. Like Catholic priests, they are mostly hoping they can get through airports without someone in the public recognizing them and spitting on them…such is the clarity with which the general public thinks when something like this comes up.

Note that the objection is not to the science, but to the political ends the science is being used to rationalize. Do not think that every political drive that uses science as its purported raison d’etre has all the scientists behind it. A person can be the scientist who is doing the research, he can be brilliant and thorough and absolutely right about what his mountains of data say about the physical state the world is in, but this does not make him an expert on what the government ought to do about it, or all the things that will happen if his advice is followed. Big difference!

Two married scientists can be in absolute agreement about what the science says and still be 180 degrees apart when it comes to the political and social implications of that information. The main thing they need to agree about, though, is how their own household is to run, regardless of what supplies the reasons.

No, I was not meaning to shout at you. Only to emphasize that science is science, and when the data gathered does not support the hypothesis, then it’s time to consider that the hypothesis is wrong, but the “climate scientists” who are all in with global warming cannot and will not do that. Thus, in my estimation, they stopped being scientists because they are trying to shape the data to fit the hypothesis. All of this came about with the aid of computer modeling in the first place - there is no ACTUAL data to support the theory in the first place. It’s all done by algorithm. That’s fun, but it’s not science. Especially not when you falsify what data you include in the first place.

This “climate science” cow patty labeling is ridiculous anyway. What is “climate science?” Is it meteorology? Is it some sort of geology? No, it’s people being turned out of higher education with nothing more than a commitment to an AGENDA. They are not scientists at all, they do not question, they merely accept and kowtow to a politically driven theory (which is wrong).

 

[aspirant]

Has anyone replying to this thread actually done any scientific research? Know any actual scientists?

I’m not, but I my scientist friends!

Old scientists, actually, get a little rush out of weird results, because they’ve been around long enough to realize that you never find out anything exciting without a real head-scratching result or an insoluble-seeming problem to challenge your thinking.

When research brings back results that are all over the map, the first thing you ask yourself is whether or not you made a mistake in gathering your data, either this batch or some previous batches. That is what you really don’t want, but there is no good trying to cover up.

Great post!

I think we all agree: the most important issue is not the pickup. The issue is whether the pickup–whether he has it or does not get to have it or decides not to have it–is going to get between the husband and the wife… We are frail creatures, though, and should not ask too much of ourselves. Seek compatibility when you seek a spouse, and do not overestimate your generosity of heart. Marriage is harder than people bargain for in the best of cases.