Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

[St_Francis]

I may have misread you but it seemed you were discounting the appropriateness of solidarity or trying to diminish it on this issue. And I was puzzled also because solidarity is a question of “who to identify with” while subsidiarity is a question of “what level ought to be responding”.

Well, I guess I just look at solidarity a little differently, but I may be wrong about it. First, I do not think that there is a question of “with whom does one identify;” everyone would identify with everyone, ideally. To me, solidarity is not the exact opposite of subsidiarity, but it is the force which brings us together as brothers.

Subsidiarity is not a divisive force, but it is the decentralizing force which balances the unifying force of solidarity.

When I look at it, I see that it is like virtues, which come in 4 modes: the mean, the excess, the lack, and the supernatural. A person can be too courageous or foolhardy, or they can be not courageous enough or cowardly. Or they can be just the right amount on the natural level, or they can be supernaturally courageous.

A person could be so into solidarity that they would spread themselves out too thin, not giving enough to anyone to do any good. Subsidiarity balances that tendency out so that each can prioritize.

My comment was based on the previous poster’s comment that it was Protestant individualism vs Catholic solidarity, which I thought was badly put, because Catholic thinkig includes subsidiarity, and thus Catholic solidarity is not in opposition to Protestant individualism.

It seems to me that Catholic leadership is taking global warming as a real and serious threat. Do you agree?

My mind is not thoroughly made up, but I have seen very little evidence that there is a serious problem, that it is of our making, that we can do anything about it.

What seriously concerns me is that it seems that advocates of AGW support measures which would cause tremendous dislocations in our economy, which would of course hurt the poor the most. When advocates also make *enormous *amounts of money, lead their lives as if there were no problem, and engage in propagandistic and fallacious forms of argumentation, my skepticism increases.

GW is an issue in the realm of science. The Church greatly respects science, but are not themselves scientists. The members of the hierarchy rely on what scientists do and say in this area, and work in their own realms of moral theology and the like.

 

[MidnightSun12]

My mind is not thoroughly made up, but I have seen very little evidence that there is a serious problem, that it is of our making, that we can do anything about it.

What seriously concerns me is that it seems that advocates of AGW support measures which would cause tremendous dislocations in our economy, which would of course hurt the poor the most. When advocates also make *enormous *amounts of money, lead their lives as if there were no problem, and engage in propagandistic and fallacious forms of argumentation, my skepticism increases.

Not to mention just how inconsistent AGW is with the Catholic teaching on being open to life. How can the emission of CO2 be a horrible thing and yet it is considered a blessing by God to have a large family? I mean, by having kids, you’re essentially creating a bunch of mini-CO2 machines who are going to one day consume as much CO2 as the parent’s are consuming today?? Even if you could somehow reduce your personal emissions by say 30% a Catholic family of 10 would still blow those reductions out of the water. Would then, having a large Catholic family be considered immoral?

For this reason alone, I find the AGW argument to be diabolically opposed to my faith as a Catholic…

 

[St_Francis]

Not to mention just how inconsistent AGW is with the Catholic teaching on being open to life. How can the emission of CO2 be a horrible thing and yet it is considered a blessing by God to have a large family? I mean, by having kids, you’re essentially creating a bunch of mini-CO2 machines who are going to one day consume as much CO2 as the parent’s are consuming today?? Even if you could somehow reduce your personal emissions by say 30% a Catholic family of 10 would still blow those reductions out of the water. Would then, having a large Catholic family be considered immoral?

For this reason alone, I find the AGW argument to be diabolically opposed to my faith as a Catholic…

Excellent points!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

My comment was based on the previous poster’s comment that it was Protestant individualism vs Catholic solidarity, which I thought was badly put, because Catholic thinkig includes subsidiarity, and thus Catholic solidarity is not in opposition to Protestant individualism.

Your thinking here seems a stretch and very unclear to me. Subsidiarity makes Catholic solidarity more aligned with protestant individualism???

My mind is not thoroughly made up, but I have seen very little evidence that there is a serious problem, that it is of our making, that we can do anything about it.

What seriously concerns me is that it seems that advocates of AGW support measures which would cause tremendous dislocations in our economy, which would of course hurt the poor the most. When advocates also make *enormous *amounts of money, lead their lives as if there were no problem, and engage in propagandistic and fallacious forms of argumentation, my skepticism increases.

Help me see that more clearly. The only dislocations I see is from fossil based fuel sources to renewable. How would that hurt the poor the most? What advocates are making enormous amounts of money? More than than oil companies?

GW is an issue in the realm of science. The Church greatly respects science, but are not themselves scientists. The members of the hierarchy rely on what scientists do and say in this area, and work in their own realms of moral theology and the like.

You disagree with teh Holy Father?
Pope Benedict XVI appealed for the success of a UN climate change conference that is opening tomorrow in Durban, South Africa. Speaking to the faithful gathered in St Peter’s Square for the Sunday Angelus prayer, Pope Benedict expressed the hope that “all members of the international community might reach agreement on a responsible, credible response,” to the phenomenon of climate change, which he described as “complex” and “disturbing”.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Not to mention just how inconsistent AGW is with the Catholic teaching on being open to life. How can the emission of CO2 be a horrible thing and yet it is considered a blessing by God to have a large family? I mean, by having kids, you’re essentially creating a bunch of mini-CO2 machines who are going to one day consume as much CO2 as the parent’s are consuming today?? Even if you could somehow reduce your personal emissions by say 30% a Catholic family of 10 would still blow those reductions out of the water. Would then, having a large Catholic family be considered immoral?

For this reason alone, I find the AGW argument to be diabolically opposed to my faith as a Catholic…

That is absurd. Would you also then say that any steps to care for the envirnoment are also diabolically opposed to Catholic teaching since each of us not only give off co2 but use natural resources and produce waste? It is not how many of us there are that is the issue. It is how well we manage our resources and waste. How about saving trees in the rainforests to accomodate large families?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

1. 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

 

[St_Francis]

Your thinking here seems a stretch and very unclear to me. Subsidiarity makes Catholic solidarity more aligned with protestant individualism???

You wrote:

…Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality – affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.

**The real issues seems to be theological, protestant individualism and Catholic solidarity.
**

You put Protestant individualism and Catholic solidarity in opposition to each other. I disagree. I think that Catholic solidarity does not stand on its own, so cannot be placed in opposition to anything on its own.

Those who advocate radical action wrt AGW are not all Catholic and are not all acting on the basis of Catholic solidarity.

The fact that I think that the Church advocates solidarity paired with subsidiarity is not the opposite of Protestant individualism does not mean that I think that they are aligned. I simply do not see it as an either/or thing at all.

Help me see that more clearly. The only dislocations I see is from fossil based fuel sources to renewable. How would that hurt the poor the most?

1. One of the ideas tossed out to reduce CO2 is to impose stringent regulations on the coal industry. This will raise the price of electricity and heating. Poor people have less money, so when prices go up on necessities like electricity and heating, they are more affected.

Moreover, when proposals are made to “bankrupt” industries, that proposal includes the loss of many jobs. While many who work in the coal industry are not poor, per se, they will be if they lose their jobs.

1. Another idea to reduce CO2 is Cash For Clunkers. The government paid more than they were worth for older cars, removing them from the pool of cars available for sale. Thus, the lowest-price tier of cars has vanished. Who is the most likely to need and buy the lowest tier of cars? Poor people. And because poor people often work odd shifts or in out-of-the way places, they usually rely more on their cars for transportation to and from work than do white collar workers.

These are just two examples of how making huge changes to our economy for anti-GW reasons hurts the poor disproportionately. What is worse is when we look at the international situation.

The once-3rd-World nations do not have the same stringent regulations imposed on the US and other Western nations listed in the Kyoto treaty, and several of them have indicated that they will do little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Where do you think the CO2-emitting jobs in the US will go? It’s just another reason to outsource manufacturing from the US to make the liberals in this nation feel virtuous.

What advocates are making enormous amounts of money?

Ever hear of a guy named Al Gore?

More than than oil companies?

What is the relevance of the difference between what they make and what the oil companies make? If the owners of the Chicago Climate Exchange make only 10% of what the oil comapnies make, and it makes them very rich, then what does it matter that it’s only 10% of what the oil companies made?

Does the fact that a drug dealer makes less than an arms dealer affect the wrongness of dealing drugs?

You disagree with the Holy Father?..

Catholics only have to agree with the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals. His statements on GW are based on his belief that what they say is true. I agree with the Holy Father wrt to the morality, but our perceptions differ wrt the underlying situation.

 

[St_Francis]

… How about saving trees in the rainforests to accomodate large families?

Do you expect large families to live in rainforest trees?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Do you expect large families to live in rainforest trees?

Ranforests provide O2 for the global climate.

Really, St Francis? I would think you would be in special agrement with the Church’s and the Pope’s stance on the environement. Plaese read the section in the compendium on the environment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#CHAPTER TEN

 

[St_Francis]

…Really, St Francis? I would think you would be in special agrement with the Church’s and the Pope’s stance on the environement.

1. We are discussing *anthropogenic *climate change, which does not fall under either faith or morals. It is not incumbent on me as a Catholic to agree with the Pope on this type of issue.
2. You do not know what I think about other aspects of the issue of the environment.

Plaese read the section in the compendium on the environment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#CHAPTER TEN

Maybe you could quote the part you feel is relevant if you have decided to make a point.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

1. We are discussing *anthropogenic *climate change, which does not fall under either faith or morals. It is not incumbent on me as a Catholic to agree with the Pope on this type of issue.
2. You do not know what I think about other aspects of the issue of the environment.

Maybe you could quote the part you feel is relevant if you have decided to make a point.

It is true that I do not know what you may think about other aspects of the environment. It certainly seems your thinking is more political than theological. Do you also think the precautionary principle does not fall under moral responsibility.

1. The authorities called to make decisions concerning health and environmental risks sometimes find themselves facing a situation in which available scientific data are contradictory or quantitatively scarce. It may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the “precautionary principle”, which does not mean applying rules but certain guidelines aimed at managing the situation of uncertainty. This shows the need for making temporary decisions that may be modified on the basis of new facts that eventually become known. Such decisions must be proportional with respect to provisions already taken for other risks. Prudent policies, based on the precautionary principle require that decisions be based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives, including the decision not to intervene. This precautionary approach is connected with the need to encourage every effort for acquiring more thorough knowledge, in the full awareness that science is not able to come to quick conclusions about the absence of risk. The circumstances of uncertainty and provisional solutions make it particularly important that the decision-making process be transparent.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I think that you are confused about the proper use of statistic for inference…

No, I’m not.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Then those who who are concerned about global warming must be ‘failing’ too?

Some of them, it seems.

 

[St_Francis]

It is true that I do not know what you may think about other aspects of the environment. It certainly seems your thinking is more political than theological.

Why do you think this?

Do you also think the precautionary principle does not fall under moral responsibility.

1. The authorities called to make decisions concerning health and environmental risks sometimes find themselves facing a situation in which available scientific data are contradictory or quantitatively scarce. It may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the “precautionary principle”, which does not mean applying rules but certain guidelines aimed at managing the situation of uncertainty. This shows the need for making temporary decisions that may be modified on the basis of new facts that eventually become known. Such decisions must be proportional with respect to provisions already taken for other risks. Prudent policies, based on the precautionary principle require that decisions be based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives, including the decision not to intervene. This precautionary approach is connected with the need to encourage every effort for acquiring more thorough knowledge, in the full awareness that science is not able to come to quick conclusions about the absence of risk. The circumstances of uncertainty and provisional solutions make it particularly important that the decision-making process be transparent.

What about the precautionary principle in relation to the effects on economies?

What I object to in this entire AGW discussion that all have been engaged in over the years is the lack of concensus, lack of evidence, and the lack of concern about the effects of their proposals on *actual people, *especially when the suggestions are disproprotionate to the situation, leading to a situation where one nation which has already reduced by a large amount strives mightily to reduce even more but other nations are permitted to or will *increase *their emissions by much more. What this will lead to is a movement of jobs away from the nations expected to reduce and towards nations which are increasing their emissions.

 

[Midwest88]

Most “scientific” charts or polls usually favor the secular world and the coasts. I take it as something interesting, but I never am persuaded enough to say “See! This proves that so and so are [insert accusation],” because I know the agenda of each. Just look at whoever help fund the project and you’ll have half your answer.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I think that you are confused about the proper use of statistic for inference.
The use of representative samples is necessary in statistics for a lot of studies, random samples could be much more biased than “representative samples”. For example if we were trying to infer the average length of a menstrual cycle and we were to randomly sample the population of the USA we would obtain that the average length is years if not decades and we know that to be wrong.
I also think that you are wrong when you say that a 1% difference is not considered valid from a scientific point of view. There are a lot of people that assess the quality of their manufacturing capabilities to numbers that are 0.01% or below. You must also understand that even if you are not able to prove that two things are different that still does not mean that they are the same.

I agree. The devil is in the details of course. How careful are they with their representative sample is important, etc.

Doing some back of the envelope calculation it looks to me that a 1% difference may be statistically significant if the standard deviation is around 10% or so for both groups (and they are divided relatively equally). This agrees with the standard grade scale where most people are within +/- 10 of 80%. I suspect that the it is statistically significant but barely so.

But none of that is neither here nor there. The original authors have access to a lot more information than I and have trained in that field. For me to assume that I know more then they about their own study would be extremely arrogant. If I had the time to read their paper and study it then perhaps I could say more.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Why do you think this?

Do you recall the leaked memo in 1994 from Republican strategist Frank Luntz?
He advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue” and “challenge the science” by “recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.”

What I object to in this entire AGW discussion that all have been engaged in over the years is the lack of concensus…

Again that is all political positioning.

A thematic content analysis of publications circulated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, if not entirely wrong. Second, the movement argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more harm than good. In short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the science of global warming appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain. In order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence of the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic “skeptic” scientists in undermining the growing scientific consensus over the reality of global warming.

jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3097132?uid=3739672&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56222354513

Consensus about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1. 
   *]the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
   *] the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
   *] the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
   *]if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
   *] a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
   
   This consensus is represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
   
   The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …
   Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
   Royal Society of Canada
   Chinese Academy of Sciences
   Academié des Sciences (France)
   Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
   Indian National Science Academy
   Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
   Science Council of Japan
   Russian Academy of Sciences
   Royal Society (United Kingdom)
   National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
   Australian Academy of Sciences
   Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
   Caribbean Academy of Sciences
   Indonesian Academy of Sciences
   Royal Irish Academy
   Academy of Sciences Malaysia
   Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
   Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
   
   In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
   NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
   National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
   State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
   Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
   American Geophysical Union (AGU)
   American Institute of Physics (AIP)
   National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
   American Meteorological Society (AMS)
   Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
   
   Who dissents?
   American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a few individual scientists.
   

   ---

   Please reconsider your position, St. Francis and join the Church.
   
   The protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. – Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 50
   
   "Our response to global climate change raises fundamental questions of morality and justice, fairness and shared sacrifice.
   usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-2010.cfm

 

[St_Francis]

…Please reconsider your position, St. Francis and join the Church…

This comment puts an end to this conversation for me.

 

[St_Francis]

…Please reconsider your position, St. Francis and join the Church…

This comment is sufficient reason for me to leave this conversation. You have not addressed any of the points that I have made, and you have use fallacious arguments just like Al Gore, who stands to make millions, and all the rest of them.

Most people once thought that everyone thought the world was flat. The fact that a large number of people, even most people, believe something does not make it true.

Moreover, I twice pointed out that one does not need to agree with the Pope on whether or not GW or CC exists, or whether it is anthropogenic, in order to be a good Catholic or even a member of the Catholic Church.

This comment is offensive and very poor argumentation. If what you want is to persuade people to the point of view you apparently espouse, you need to learn *how *to do so. If what you want to do is to push people *away, *well, you are doing *just fine. *

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Your mind was made up long befor this conversation and you have not made any cogent points that the USCCB has not already addressed.
If they and the Pope cannot pursuade you, I have no false hopes to do so either.

I do not think one has to agree with the Pope and Bishops on everything they say to be a good Catholic. But in this case I think they ought not be dismissed so easily.

Peace