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

[St_Francis]

Your mind was made up long befor this conversation

From the beginning of the conversation:

…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. …

and you have not made any cogent points that the USCCB has not already addressed.

And maybe if you had included this information in your comments, it might have done some good.

If you blame me that your comments did nothing to change my mind, you will never improve your skills at debate. If you say to yourself, Gee, this person seems to have been pushed away by my comments, maybe I should consider whether or not she has a point, then you might be able to learn something about how to be more successful in persuading others to your point of view.

I only mention this because I think that you sincerely believe the stance you espouse and I think it is possible that you are a young person who has not spent a lot of time trying to persuade people to your points of view; iow, I am not trying to be mean or anything, but to let you know that you are probably intelligent enough to persuade people but you seem to have no idea how to do it, a state which can be easily corrrected by a bit of study.

 

[Estevao]

Question: has the “scientific consensus” produced one peer-reviewed study showing a cause and effect relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and higher temperatures yet?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I do lack debate skills as well as patience.

This is especially so when I do the homework for others only for it to be discounted.
I provided links and in some cases even actual text with bold print.
Need I do that with everything and include a along with it?

As far as peer reviewed studies go, Estevao, you can do the search as well as I.
My efforts at providing such info are unappreciated.

And I guess at this point I have said enough. The info is out there for all to see.

Believe what and who you want.
I will stick with the vast majority including our own Catholic leadership.

see also:

catholicclimatecovenant.org/

 

[Edmundus1581]

I do lack debate skills as well as patience.

**This is especially so when I do the homework for others only for it to be discounted.
I provided links and in some cases even actual text with bold print. **
Need I do that with everything and include a along with it?

As far as peer reviewed studies go, Estevao, you can do the search as well as I.
My efforts at providing such info are unappreciated.

And I guess at this point I have said enough. The info is out there for all to see.

Believe what and who you want.
I will stick with the vast majority including our own Catholic leadership.

see also:

catholicclimatecovenant.org/

I appreciate the work, in this and the above posts! Thankyou!

My own mind was not changed from “cautious” to “accept AGW” until quite recently when I heard a climate scientist patiently explaining to an audience of skeptics what the scientific underpining of AGW is, but I’m still learning and appreciate your information.

Your most recent link, WRT to a Catholic response, includes this:

The impact of climate change falls heaviest on the world’s poor. As Catholics, our faith demands prudent action.

Our cars and power plants, more energy consumption and waste—we’re leaving a bigger carbon footprint. Scientists tell us that means more climate change. Here and around the world, it is the poor who will be hit hardest. With more droughts, floods, hunger and joblessness. As faithful Catholics, we have a moral obligation to care for both Creation and the poor. Pope Benedict XVI insists, “Before it is too late, it is necessary to make courageous decisions” to curb climate change.

That is a very good answer to the assertion that action on climate change is damaging to the poor.

On that accusation, here in Australia there will be carbon tax from July. It will mean an increase in energy prices, but it has been managed to cause no net loss to the poor. There are ways to do these things without just saying that it’s all too hard, and so doing nothing. In our own lives we don’t choose to do nothing because it’s too hard, or because we don’t have certainty on the problems and outcomes.

 

[epan]

Right after you or any of you 56%ers produce actual, tangible, physical evidence of global warming. No data, study, or research will be acceptable here. I want actual evidence.

The evidence is startlingly overwhelming, and beyond the scope of a blog like this. This is one matter in which I agree with Pope Gregory XVI. Are you telling me that you disagree with the Holy Father? As pointed out by michael mayo further down in the thread, the count of people who actually understand the evidence and have an expert opinion are as follows. You may disagree with them, but at this point the burden of proof is on you, given the preponderance of the evidence:

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

 

[St_Francis]

I do lack debate skills as well as patience.

This is especially so when I do the homework for others only for it to be discounted.

Lesson One: in a discussion or debate, *you are not the teacher. *You are a person who is trying to persuade. You have taken on a job; you must do the work. You do not get to assign homework.

I provided links

Lesson Two: Links are supplementary. You must make a point and back it up. Sometimes that back-up will be a link.

and in some cases even actual text with bold print.

Lesson Three: You are the one trying to persuade the other. Providing text, and sometimes bolding the most essential part, is what you are *supposed *to do, not something you whine about doing.

Need I do that with everything and include a along with it?

Lesson Four: Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. If not because you are a good Catholic who treats people with human dignity, if not because you are a Catholic who strives for humility rather than pride, then because when you treat people badly, they are much less likely to pay any attention at all to what you say.

As far as peer reviewed studies go, Estevao, you can do the search as well as I.
My efforts at providing such info are unappreciated.

Lesson Five: Your efforts will be much more appreciated if they are not incredibly sparse and delivered with an arrogant attitude. IOW, first you are friendly, second, you provide information, because *you *are trying to persuade the other person.

And I guess at this point I have said enough. The info is out there for all to see.

Lesson Six: You treat people like they also have a brain, not like you are the only one who does. People generally believe that they have done the research necessary to come to a conclusion–maybe not a firm conclusion, but they are satisfied with the work they have done. If you have decided to persuade someone, treat them as people who know about as much as you do, but they know different things than you do. You are imparting knowledge to an equal.

Believe what and who you want.

Lesson Seven: It is very helpful to listen to what the other person thinks and believes, and address those points directly.

Lesson Eight: It is very helpful to listen to their reasons for believing as they do.

I will stick with the vast majority including our own Catholic leadership.

Lesson Eight: Learn what constitutes evidence and what does not constitute evidence. For example, you have two fallacies in your statement above: appeal to belief and appeal to authority: just because an idea is widely accepted says nothing about whether it is true or not (consider homosexual “marriage”), and just because someone is an expert on one subject does not give his opinion in another subject any authority at all (consider Richard Dawkins).

Here is a brief discussion of writing in support of an argument. There is a lot more information out there if you want to learn more.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Lesson One: in a discussion or debate, *you are not the teacher. *.

You certainly sound like one here.
Maybe practice what you preach.

 

[K-McD]

The evidence is startlingly overwhelming, and beyond the scope of a blog like this. This is one matter in which I agree with Pope Gregory XVI. Are you telling me that you disagree with the Holy Father? As pointed out by michael mayo further down in the thread, the count of people who actually understand the evidence and have an expert opinion are as follows. You may disagree with them, but at this point the burden of proof is on you, given the preponderance of the evidence:

…blah, blah, blah…

Who dissents?
American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a few individual

Insufficient. You didn’t provide anything that proves it is happening. I want pictures and all you gave me were words. This shouldn’t be hard, you’ve had over 20 years worth of actual “evidence”. Go back and try again.

 

[St_Francis]

You certainly sound like one here.
Maybe practice what you preach.

I do lack debate skills …

Oh, I wasn’t trying to persuade, just thought I would help you out.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Oh, I wasn’t trying to persuade, just thought I would help you out.

Thank you. I will take to heart your lessons and apologize for any offense.

Perhaps you will follow them also If you still desire to defend the dissenting view.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Insufficient. You didn’t provide anything that proves it is happening. I want pictures and all you gave me were words. This shouldn’t be hard, you’ve had over 20 years worth of actual “evidence”. Go back and try again.

Here are some pictures for you;

www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_change_man_or_myth.pdf

 

[John1956]

So the shrinking of the Polar Ice Cap is made up for political reasons?

There is no doubt about the earth’s climate change,

There is a huge amount melting of the polar ice cap every summer yet cities on the coast are not swamped. Hmmm…

 

[K-McD]

Here are some pictures for you;

www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_change_man_or_myth.pdf

Listen sister, slide presentations with the content of a 3rd grader doesn’t count either. I’m asking for real pictures of the effect of global warming. This should be hard. Come on, you’ve had 20+ years to document this.

 

[epan]

Insufficient. You didn’t provide anything that proves it is happening. I want pictures and all you gave me were words. This shouldn’t be hard, you’ve had over 20 years worth of actual “evidence”. Go back and try again.

Quite sufficient. You are being obstinate, without justification. I support your right to be wrong, even though your attitude puzzles me. The world is made better by contrarians such as yourself. We’ll just have to disagree. I mean with the amount of evidence which has accumulated, and the stature and size of the scientific community which embraces it, your position seems like someone standing in a downpour drenched to the skin, and saying… “show me the rain. There is no rain.”

 

[epan]

Insufficient. You didn’t provide anything that proves it is happening. I want pictures and all you gave me were words. This shouldn’t be hard, you’ve had over 20 years worth of actual “evidence”. Go back and try again.

Do you think your denial is fear based? Our planet is the ultimate scarce resource. The emotion you inject into your replies suggest fear.

We would like to reach 2050 without an apocalyptic melt down. There are ways to do this, just look at costa rica… They seem to be on track.

 

[St_Francis]

Listen sister, slide presentations with the content of a 3rd grader doesn’t count either. I’m asking for real pictures of the effect of global warming. This should be hard. Come on, you’ve had 20+ years to document this.

I think that someone named Michael should not be called sister

And the PP presentation got better as it went along. Mr Mayo needs to learn to do things like say, On pp XX-YY he discusses some of the weaknesses of the GW skeptics’ arguments, stuff like that, but as a brief introduction to the issue, I thought it was pretty good, considering that it was a PP thing which is usually used in conjunction with some explanations. Altho the first page bothered me because the teacher assumed what he was planning to show. But he did have a lot of stuff to show it after all.

 

[St_Francis]

Thank you. I will take to heart your lessons and apologize for any offense.

Thank you

Perhaps you will follow them also If you still desire to defend the dissenting view.

I wasn’t trying to do that. I just with your comment on Catholic solidarity and answered the questions you asked me.

 

[MidnightSun12]

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?

Unfortunately your views are our of step with the official findings of the IPCC. The UN panel on climate change (and the leading proponents of the movement) widely agree that over-population is a significant contributor to climate change. This is why these groups also support contraception and abortion services in the third world as a means to avoid (what they officially believe is) an approaching global catastrophy.

There’s nothing wrong with reducing personal consumption (in fact, as christians we are called to do so out of charity for our neighbour and to not consume resources that are needed for others). But the idea that God could make mistakes by creating too many people on the earth and the we need world socialism and control of natural law to avoid a global catastrophy is absolutely absurd and very contrary to Catholic belief.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Listen sister, slide presentations with the content of a 3rd grader doesn’t count either. I’m asking for real pictures of the effect of global warming. This should be hard. Come on, you’ve had 20+ years to document this.

Are you here just to have some fun or serious discussion?
Is there a particular slide you would like to refute?

I will play one more turn of “Show me…not good enough” but you will need to reciprocate with some sort of counter evidence if you expect me to hang in here with you.

I feel I have brought quite a bit to this discussion while the naysayers have brought nothing but opinion.
You also dissent from the majority view which includes the Catholic Church. On what basis do you dissent?

Since it is pictures you want here is one showing that the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent since 1979.

nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

Do you doubt global warming totally or just the human cause?

Do you have any concern about preserving clean air and water for future generations?

Help me understand where you are coming from.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Unfortunately your views are our of step with the official findings of the IPCC. The UN panel on climate change (and the leading proponents of the movement) widely agree that over-population is a significant contributor to climate change. This is why these groups also support contraception and abortion services in the third world as a means to avoid (what they officially believe is) an approaching global catastrophy.

There’s nothing wrong with reducing personal consumption (in fact, as christians we are called to do so out of charity for our neighbour and to not consume resources that are needed for others). But the idea that God could make mistakes by creating too many people on the earth and the we need world socialism and control of natural law to avoid a global catastrophy is absolutely absurd and very contrary to Catholic belief.

I am with you on that, Midnight. While I go along with the IPCC on AGW I also stick with the response of the Bishops.

Population and Authentic Development
Population and climate change should be addressed from the broader perspective of a concern for protecting human life, caring for the environment, and respecting cultural norms and the religious faith and moral values of peoples. Population is not simply about statistics. Behind every demographic number is a precious and irreplaceable human life whose human dignity must be respected.

The global climate change debate cannot become just another opportunity for some groups—usually affluent advocates from the developed nations—to blame the problem on population growth in poor countries. Historically, the industrialized countries have emitted more greenhouse gases that warm the climate than have the developing countries. Affluent nations such as our own have to acknowledge the impact of voracious consumerism instead of simply calling for population and emissions controls from people in poorer nations.

A more responsible approach to population issues is the promotion of “authentic development,” which represents a balanced view of human progress and includes respect for nature and social well-being. Development policies that seek to reduce poverty with an emphasis on improved education and social conditions for women are far more effective than usual population reduction programs and far more respectful of women’s dignity.

We should promote a respect for nature that encourages policies fostering natural family planning and the education of women and men rather than coercive measures of population control or government incentives for birth control that violate local cultural and religious norms.Again from :
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm