Global Warming: Speech by Al Gore filled with vulgarity

[kimmielittle]

Your earlier implications that Al Gore’s foul mouth is proof his thesis on global warming must be in error was just the beginning.

If I wished to attack Mr Gore’s hypothesis…I would use Mr Gore’s own Charts

I take it that you agree with Mr Gore’s Graphs?

If I agree with Mr Gore’s graphs…I’ve thrown CO2 out the window as the Main Driver of Climate.

You see, Mr Gore won’t tell you this…but by using his graphs it shows: CO2 lags Temperature rise by 800 years.

If CO2 is the Main driver of climate Temperature would rise WITH CO2 Rise…But Temperature Rises before CO2

Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore’s graph. You are probably wondering by now – and if you are not, you should be – which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not “complicated.” When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

It’s just one inconvenient truth.

I can give many links to this but here is two.

huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

It should also be noted…MR Gore refuses to explain this…For that matter, He refuses to debate about anything he’s presented.

To discredit Mr Gore’s Claims - one only needs… His presentation materials.

Actually, His claims are so easy…Climate Realists such as myself ] don’t even try. Even Kid’s do it discredit his claims ] in school.
.
PS Do you want to know just exactly out of the 60 reviewers etc who actually participated in AR4 - Altho IPCC claims 4000 took part ] Actually agreed to The findings of IPCC’s AGW That humans cause global warming…

***** Holding up one hand***** ]

That’s right folks!!! ** 5 people ** AND their credibility as Scientists has been called to question

AR4 Chapter 9 … ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

Dr Vincent Gray

UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray (PhD chemistry, Cambridge) has reviewed every UN IPCC Assessment Report and Summary for Policy Makers: 1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. Below are his detailed review comments on the UN IPCC’s 2007 Report by chapter. His review of chapter 9 is presented first because it is the UN IPCC’s chapter purporting warming due to human production of CO2. Gray has advised there is no evidence that additional human production of CO2 is harming the climate.

conscious.com.au/

Dr Gray’s PDF on Chapter 9 conscious.com.au/__documents/gray%20documents/Chapter%209%20UN%20IPCC%20WG1%20AR4%20Vincent%20Gray.pdf

Of particular interest is his final comments on page 25

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi David.

Thanks for speaking up for righteousness.

It is actually 100% of bona fide, working climate scientists who say anthropogenic global warming is happening, even the ones heavily funded by fossil fuel industries,

LIKE CRU?

Care to Talk about Mr Spencer’s Credentials… Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville:…Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists:…Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:…Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:…Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland:…David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:…Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:…William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University:…William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology:…David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware:…Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:…Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:…Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:…Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing:…Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:…Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:…Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:…Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London:…Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center:…Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa:…Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks:…Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris):…Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University:…John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports:…Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory:…David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma:…

And …and…

like Lindzen (who simply say won’t be as bad as others claim).

That is NOT the TRUTH…

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:

"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[7][8]

I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[6]

The other supposed “scientists” (whether they have PhDs, DDSs, DDs or whatever) who say AGW is not happening – and they are legion – are not climate scientists and do not publish in respectable, top-tier, peer-reviewed science journals.

Nonsense!!!

You can read the meta-science studies (of science) regarding this 100% consensus. For instance, works by Naomi Oreskes:

Do you understand her conclusions and her study.?

Basically she said: Because there was a lack of "skeptical’ peer reviewed papers published…this shows…Consensus.

This study was done in 1994 - 2004…

WHAT do the climategate emails tell us of blackballing desenting views from scientific journals during that time?

OF COURSE her study is flawed.

And over the next 16 years the science has become ever more robust, with all bona fide climate scientist in total agreement that AGW is happening. That’s a done deal. I’ll post more sources in a later post, as Kimmie wants them.

Don’t bother - I will just have to waste time rippin’ them as I did in other threads…

HERE IS THE FACTS…When Science or your views ] Depend on consensus YOU NO LONGER OCCUPY SCIENCE

Our Holy Father, JPII didn’t have to wait until 1995 & 95% scientific confidence (and neither did I). He admonished us back in 1990 in his 1/1/90 “Peace with All Creation” statement that mitigating global warming

Hmmmmm prove this. You do know The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted at the Rio Summit
in 1992, and entered into force in 1994.. There was NO claim by IPCC in 1990 of AGW.

IMO You have consistently been misleading if not dishonest by trying to put YOUR meanings into Our Holy Father’s Mouths… Should I ask a Moderator to review your claims?

 

[kimmielittle]

It is actually 100% of bona fide, working climate scientists who say anthropogenic global warming is happening, even the ones heavily funded by fossil fuel industries,

Let’s see Mr Jones is funded by Shell and British Petroleum and Oman and ESSO

MR Hansen has been funded by George Soros $730,000 in one year

Mr Schmidt has ties to Mr Soros Tides Foundation / Environmental Media Services

ALL of CRU is funded by Oil …AND so ALL associated with CRU are funded by fossil fuels.

Mr Mann received Economic Stimulus Funds

IPCC is LOADED with Conflict of interest fundings

So by your OWN logic…these scientists are also tainted.

I agree!!!

Do you have anyone left preaching AGW schemes?

 

[davidmlamb]

Hi David.

Thanks for speaking up for righteousness. .

Thank you Lynne, I think it has become quite clear now that the Holy Spirit is speaking through me and that I am super righteous and that Kimmie might want to submit to my divine teaching authority in science (hehehehe)

I’ve been following this issue like a hawk for over 21 years, reading the scientific studies, etc.

It is actually 100% of bona fide, working climate scientists who say anthropogenic global warming is happening, even the ones heavily funded by fossil fuel industries, like Lindzen (who simply say won’t be as bad as others claim). The other supposed “scientists” (whether they have PhDs, DDSs, DDs or whatever) who say AGW is not happening – and they are legion – are not climate scientists and do not publish in respectable, top-tier, peer-reviewed science journals.

If your ears can take more profanity (and I understand perfectly why climate scientists and those concerned about life on earth are turning to it nowadays, tho I don’t approve of it), here is an interesting & fun video (not recommended for sensitive viewers): youtube.com/watch?v=H7wdKg8rYL0

You can read the meta-science studies (of science) regarding this 100% consensus. For instance, works by Naomi Oreskes:

• “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” in SCIENCE, 2004, 306(5702), available at citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.3835&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Speaking about her book, Merchants of Doubt at youtube.com/watch?v=i1RyHTDycng

The first studies to reach scientific certainty on AGW came out in 1995:

• Kerr, Richard A. 1995. “Studies Say -Tentatively -That Greenhouse Warming is Here.” Science 268(5217):1567-8.
• Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. 1996. Climate Change 1995: the Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. NY: Cambridge University Press.

And over the next 16 years the science has become ever more robust, with all bona fide climate scientist in total agreement that AGW is happening. That’s a done deal. I’ll post more sources in a later post, as Kimmie wants them.

The next question is how bad will AGW be, and most agree it will be bad for life on earth, esp under a business-as-usual scenario. If you believe the oil-funded scientists, not very bad. If you believe sincere scientists, it could be very bad. Hansen (I can’t imagine a more sincere and honest person…tho the denialists have mounted a smear campaign against him too) has suggested it could mean the end of all life on earth. This is cutting edge, and not all climate scientists are on board with him…yet. But here is his conference paper that suggests this (see esp. page 24): columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

Our Holy Father, JPII didn’t have to wait until 1995 & 95% scientific confidence (and neither did I). He admonished us back in 1990 in his 1/1/90 “Peace with All Creation” statement that mitigating global warming (then referred to as the greenhouse effect) was EVERYONE’S responsibility, and his and BXVI messages on this have never waivered since – it is our responsibility and duty to mitigate it.

And why would I need 95% certainty that I am harming and killing people, to start my efforts at ceasing and desisting? Luckily those efforts also saved us $1000s over the past 21 years, without lowering our living standards, reducing our GHGs by 50%.

Anyone who tells you that it is not our responsibility to mitigate AGW is plain and simple at odds with the Church and its environmental teachings (and they are missing out on a lot of financial savings and better health). End of story.

Although Climatelology and environmental science are not my expertise I am pretty convince AGW is happening. Kimmie has rightly pointed out there is no Climate Model in place to prove this but there is enough data to make it very plausable. On the other hand, there is no evidence that climate change is largely do to natural causes with one huge exception. GHG caused by CH2. But here is the thing, CH2 can be harnassed for renewable energy that can replace crude oil. Since we not only have the technology to clean up these gases but harness them for renewable energy we have a moral duty to do it. IMO Kimmie is motivated by economics which appears to be her primary concern.

Peace,
David

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you Lynne, I think it has become quite clear now that the Holy Spirit is speaking through me and that I am super righteous and that Kimmie might want to submit to my divine teaching authority in science (hehehehe)

Whoa Ponys

You Know, I too, feel the Holy Spirit is using me. To get the truth out,To NOT present unsubstantiated Claims. To Actually DO research into claims BEFORE I present them.

Just Think, If The Holy Spirit hadn’t lead me to do these things…You’d still be claiming Big Business was behind any Scientist who says there is **no observational evidence to ANY of the Claims made by AGW’'ers . **

Although Climatelology and environmental science are not my expertise I am pretty convince AGW is happening. Kimmie has rightly pointed out there is no Climate Model in place to prove this but there is enough data to make it very plausable. On the other hand, there is no evidence that climate change is largely do to natural causes

I have 200 Million years of observational evidence that Climate IS CONTROLLED / REGULATED by Nature.

To the consternation of global warming proponents,] the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Or For example, during the Jurassic Period 200 mya ], average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm – about 18 times higher than today.

HOW DID they recover if not Naturally???

IN fact:The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.

YOU HAVE WHAT?

. IMO Kimmie is motivated by economics which appears to be her primary concern.

AND once again your opinion …IS flawed. BUT carry on.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One of the complaints from liberals is the lack of civility in the political arena … and there, the paragon, the former divinity student … is Mr. Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Anyway, I found an interesting book that discusses global warming from a Christian context:

"The Global-Warming Deception" by Grant R. Jeffrey

He puts the whole issue in Christian terms. Unusual.

Here is the table of contents:

1. The Hidden Agenda of Global Warming Is Global Government
2. The Pervasive Myth of Man-Made Global Warming
3. The Propaganda Campaign That Advances Global Government
4. Global Warming’s False Claims and False Science
5. Fatal Flaws in the Official Global-Warming Documents
6. Al Gore’s Convenient Lies
7. Climategate: Hiding the Flaws in Global-Warming Data
8. The Truth About Temperature Change
9. International Climate Treaties and Fossil-Fuel Substitutes
10. Global Warming and Population Control
11. The Church of Global-Warming
12. The Ongoing Global-Warming Challenge

Notes

Bibliography

This is a worthwhile addition to your home library.

And/or request your local librarian to get it for you.

Just browsing through the book: how CRU hides the data; altering historical temperature data; silencing critics;

Really excellent. And if you want more, I recognized the authors and other publications in the bibliography to be a great source.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Kimmie my friend, I have a lot of respect for you. I’ll post more later, but thanks for sticking up for your (our) beliefs and views.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s another video that really fits with what the U.S. Bishops have said, that we must mitigate AGW out of prudence; for those with background in research methods, it’s about avoiding the false negative:

youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

 

[FaithBuild18]

…Actually… I don’t really know how to respond to the posts in this threat without wasting my entire day. There’s just a few things I definitely want to say:

1. A consensus is in no way scientific evidence. Scientific consensus, historically, have more often been wrong than right. It used to be the consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. It used to be the consensus that natural selection did not occur. A real scientist would never use some dogmatic consensus as a form of evidence.
2. For the junior scientist, from where in the heck did you get your education? I’m in the midst of a fairly rigorous scientific education, and the fallacies that have been committed here in the name of science would make my mentors cringe. It honestly appears that you don’t really know what the word “evidence” means. Which brings me to my third point.
3. By linking to trends, observations, models, etc, you are in no way supporting the hypothesis that human emissions have a significant effect on the climate. Simply saying that the climate is warming, and that CO2 emissions have increased, and that polar ice caps are shrinking, etc, has NO indication whether or not one is even remotely linked to the other. I’m not denying the possibility. I personally believe that human emissions may contribute, but am unaware of to what extent. You cannot, honestly, scientifically, say as a matter of fact whether or not human activity has caused or will cause increased warming. The proper response of a scientist would be that of modesty and skepticism. Keep the dogma out of science. We simply do not have the answer, and lack any sort of tangible evidence to suggest anything other than the observation that the climate is indeed warming.
4. Climatologists are not the only scientists that can contribute to the debate. No one specialization can fully assess the effects climate change will eternally have on the globe. Astrophysicists can often contribute to both sides of the argument. Simply because they aren’t called climatologists doesn’t make their efforts bunk. Climatologists completely rely on the work of astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, etc, as a basis for their own work. As a matter of my own personal opinion, biologists, zoologists, botanists, etc, can probably contribute more to the discussion on long term effects as they more clearly understand the thresholds of species and the adaptive capabilities of life. Also a matter of my personal opinion, informed by several years worth of some of America’s best biological education, life is highly adaptive. HIGHLY HIGHLY ADAPTIVE. It will be very, very difficult to wipe all of it off the face of this Earth. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I think the only one capable of doing that is God himself.

Life tends to flourish in warmer periods. It is absolutely possible, and highly likely, that some species will die out, and that people in certain regions will indeed die from warming, BUT, it has also been suggested that there will be less human deaths from heat related complications than we currently have from cold related complications. The rest of the plant and animal kingdom will, if anything, likely receive benefits from a slight increase in global temperature. Also keep in mind that 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. People need to stop worrying about the extinction of species. It’s part of life on Earth. But extinctions certainly occur at a much larger scale during cooling phases than warming phases. This planet is very, very, very good at recovering and adapting.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s another video that really fits with what the U.S. Bishops have said, that we must mitigate AGW out of prudence; for those with background in research methods, it’s about avoiding the false negative:

youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Ohhhh my my…Do you understand what a “false negative” is?

For a “False Negative” to “register” there has to be a KNOWN “Positive”.

If the hypothesis of AGW can not be proven The Positive, in this case would be the hypothesis of AGW “PROVEN” ]… you can not arrive at a “Negative” let alone a “False Negative”.

I don’t know where you learned your Research Skills or Logic …BUT they IMO are clearly lacking.

If you can not prove that you can “mitigate” The Positive ] even 1C of temperature rise - Which would be needed for a “POSITIVE” result ]…You have no “Negative” let alone a “False Negative”.

If you can’t give an optimum Earth Temperature The POSITIVE ] — you can have no “Negative” let alone a “False Negative”.

We can show Negatives and Positives BUT CERTAINLY NO 'FALSE NEGATIVES" In the hypothesis of AGW.

I’ve shown you the NEGATIVES of IPCC “solutions” offered.

Cap and Trade Schemes - Negatively effects developing counties and humankind
Carbon Credit Schemes - Negatively effects anyone who can’t afford them
Population Control Schemes - We ALL know Where the Church stands on this.

THAT’S IT…NOT ONE POSITIVE

I’ll see your “False Negative” and raise you a Arch-Bishop who teaches about “False Compassions”…

mikeadkins.com/article/bishop-fulton-sheen-on-false-compassionpart-i/
mikeadkins.com/article/bishop-fulton-sheen-on-false-compassionpart-ii/

How is False Compassion relative to AGW? LOOK no further than the IPCC “Solutions”…To an unproven hypothesis.

Examples of “false compassion” are legion and some obvious ones will make the point: Where is the compassion in minimum wage laws that produce outrageous teenage unemployment? Where is the compassion in high tax rates that are a proven disincentive to job creation? Where is the compassion in government run health care that is bankrupting our country? It is high time that our religious leaders take a hard look at the man-made systems through which they are attempting to spread and implement God’s word. We can not change God’s plans for our world, but we can organize our societies in ways that give His instructions the best chance of success.

civilsocietytrust.org/blog/2010/03/07/the-costs-of-false-compassion/

.
’

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie my friend, I have a lot of respect for you. I’ll post more later, but thanks for sticking up for your (our) beliefs and views.

Thank You

 

[kimmielittle]

…Actually… I don’t really know how to respond to the posts in this threat without wasting my entire day. There’s just a few things I definitely want to say:

1. A consensus is in no way scientific evidence. Scientific consensus, historically, have more often been wrong than right. It used to be the consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. It used to be the consensus that natural selection did not occur. A real scientist would never use some dogmatic consensus as a form of evidence.
2. For the junior scientist, from where in the heck did you get your education? I’m in the midst of a fairly rigorous scientific education, and the fallacies that have been committed here in the name of science would make my mentors cringe. It honestly appears that you don’t really know what the word “evidence” means. Which brings me to my third point.
3. By linking to trends, observations, models, etc, you are in no way supporting the hypothesis that human emissions have a significant effect on the climate. Simply saying that the climate is warming, and that CO2 emissions have increased, and that polar ice caps are shrinking, etc, has NO indication whether or not one is even remotely linked to the other. I’m not denying the possibility. I personally believe that human emissions may contribute, but am unaware of to what extent. You cannot, honestly, scientifically, say as a matter of fact whether or not human activity has caused or will cause increased warming. The proper response of a scientist would be that of modesty and skepticism. Keep the dogma out of science. We simply do not have the answer, and lack any sort of tangible evidence to suggest anything other than the observation that the climate is indeed warming.
4. Climatologists are not the only scientists that can contribute to the debate. No one specialization can fully assess the effects climate change will eternally have on the globe. Astrophysicists can often contribute to both sides of the argument. Simply because they aren’t called climatologists doesn’t make their efforts bunk. Climatologists completely rely on the work of astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, etc, as a basis for their own work. As a matter of my own personal opinion, biologists, zoologists, botanists, etc, can probably contribute more to the discussion on long term effects as they more clearly understand the thresholds of species and the adaptive capabilities of life. Also a matter of my personal opinion, informed by several years worth of some of America’s best biological education, life is highly adaptive. HIGHLY HIGHLY ADAPTIVE. It will be very, very difficult to wipe all of it off the face of this Earth. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I think the only one capable of doing that is God himself.

Life tends to flourish in warmer periods. It is absolutely possible, and highly likely, that some species will die out, and that people in certain regions will indeed die from warming, BUT, it has also been suggested that there will be less human deaths from heat related complications than we currently have from cold related complications. The rest of the plant and animal kingdom will, if anything, likely receive benefits from a slight increase in global temperature. Also keep in mind that 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. People need to stop worrying about the extinction of species. It’s part of life on Earth. But extinctions certainly occur at a much larger scale during cooling phases than warming phases. This planet is very, very, very good at recovering and adapting.

Well Said…Balanced

 

[lynnvinc]

LIKE CRU?

Care to Talk about Mr Spencer’s Credentials… David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma…

Except for a few, these are not climate scientists. And among those who are climate scientists (like Spencer and Christy), their peer-reviewed works supposedly disproving current anthropogenic climate change have not stood over time. All have been debunked, or they have not disproved AGW.

Just check RC Wiki (which has nearly all these names, and if they don’t cover some you mentioned, then those people probably have not mounted even partly credible critiques worth rebutting) at realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki#Alphabetically_.28by_author.29

Do you understand her (Oreskes’s) conclusions and her study? Basically she said: Because there was a lack of "skeptical’ peer reviewed papers published…this shows…Consensus. This study was done in 1994 - 2004…

WHAT do the climategate emails tell us of blackballing desenting views from scientific journals during that time?

The science has become even stronger and more robust since 2004. RE the hacked emails, it doesn’t show that they blocked articles from being published, only that they wished certain sub-standard and wrong articles could somehow be blocked. Peer-review does not always work – they say it is a necessary, but not sufficient assurance of accurate scientific work. Some years back someone published some false article about cold fusion, and in my field (anthropology) there were articles that later they found were not only wrong, but purposely wrong. That’s why a single peer-reviewed article is not enough to establish the science; rather it has to withstand the tests of time and further study. That’s also why scientists didn’t all jump on the AGW bandwagon back in 1995 when the first studies reached .05 (95% confidence) on AGW.

Now as laypersons and persons concerned about life on planet earth, we do not need 95% certainty that a big and dangerous problem is happening before we act – even 50% confidence or 20% confidence is plenty enough…especially to start doing the myriad of “no-regret” things that also save us money. Scientists are exceedingly conservative and reticient in their efforts to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE (making untrue claims) – they cannot risk their reputations being the boy who called wolf. We, on the other hand, who are concerned about life on earth would be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE (of failing to address true and dangerous problems); we cannot afford to the be villagers who gotten eaten up by the wolf.

IMO You have consistently been misleading if not dishonest by trying to put YOUR meanings into Our Holy Father’s Mouths…

I don’t agree with your interpretations that JPII and BXVI were only refering to natural climate change and not the anthropogenic climate change that is happening now. I’ve read their statements very carefully many times, and they were obviously referring to anthropologenic climate change – AKA climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect. Why else would they be bringing it to our attention and telling us it is our responsibility. If they honestly thought it was just a natural cycle, then they’d be expecting that we have about reached our warming peak and will be slowly over many thousands of years start slipping into a ice age – and nothing to worry about within a thousand or more generations.

Maybe we can write to BXVI and have him clarify his meaning…

Of course, we should send aid to those suffering from the impacts of climate change, whether or not it is anthropogenic (but esp if it is), such as the victims of droughts, hurricanes, storms, floods, etc. That is just the humanitarian thing to do.

 

[lynnvinc]

Ohhhh my my…Do you understand what a “false negative” is?’

I teach research methods at a university, so I know what it is.

 

[kimmielittle]

Except for a few, these are not climate scientists.

This is the most ridiculous statement REALCLIMATE has ever made or tried to sell.

Physical Science Physics ] Applies - no matter what “hard science” it’s applied to.

It makes no difference if one is a “Climate Scientist” If your physics / physical evidence claims don’t match observational evidence.

And among those who are climate scientists (like Spencer and Christy), their peer-reviewed works supposedly disproving current anthropogenic climate change have not stood over time.

First off, their peer-reviewed has never claimed disproving AGW…BUT disproving individual Claims made by AGW’ers that don’t hold up to observational evidence.

All have been debunked,

Actually wrong Another RealClimate misleader ]…

I’ll ask again, provide evidence for your statement…

or they have not disproved AGW.

You say this like you understand it - BUT that statement is a fallacy in logic…It’s called “Circular Reasoning”

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1053&pictureid=7241

The science has become even stronger and more robust since 2004.

Actually true BUT not how you wish us to think ] Since 2004 Nothing Scientifically new, supports AGW. Since AR4’s release, There has been a “flood” of papers - Correcting AR4’s Claims.

RE the hacked emails,

We don’t know if Hacked OR leaked OR mistakenly dumped - Another misleading REALCLIMATE term.

it doesn’t show that they blocked articles from being published, only that they wished certain sub-standard and wrong articles could somehow be blocked.

Even Mr Hansen claims he was censored

NOW here is a question: Who decides “sub-standard” “wrong” . What the Climate Gate Emails Show…is PAL-REVIEWED papers being published. Pressure put on academic journals who published non PAL-REVIEWED

Mr Jones admits PAL-REVIEW .

That’s also why scientists didn’t all jump on the AGW bandwagon back in 1995 when the first studies reached .05 (95% confidence) on AGW.

Here we go again…
You do realize a POLL is not a scientific find. A 95% confidence level IS an indicator of ONE thing ONLY - The confidence level attributed by / of those being POLLED.

This is why you’ve never been able to produce the 95%.
Were they the **5 FIVE people ** who actually signed the AR4 Chapter 9 report saying Climate warming is caused by man?

An actual statistic would show that 95% OF THE 60 ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS took part in AR4 signed it Let’s say 57 of the 60… OR 3800 of the IPCC Claimed 4000 participants.

There were **5 Five **

Now as laypersons and persons concerned about life on planet earth, we do not need 95% certainty that a big and dangerous problem is happening before we act – even 50% confidence or 20% confidence is plenty enough.

You are trying to resort to a philosophical argument… The way you tried to use “false negative” as a variation of Pascal’s Wager.

We don’t have 95%
We don’t have 50%
We don’t have 20%

Here again, is what you need for even .01%
To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

“To claim one has a particular case for a particular idea, one must first understand the idea.”

I don’t agree with your interpretations that JPII and BXVI were only refering to natural climate change

Of course you don’t - you are the one trying to put YOUR meanings in their words - I’ve offered no interpretation Again Hard evidence ].

What words the Holy Fathers have NOT spoken" publicly Or from The Chair…
“Anthropogenic climate change”
“AGW”
"Man-made Climate "

This is significant seeing how easy they are thrown around by IPCC and AGW’ers.

 

[kimmielittle]

I teach research methods at a university, so I know what it is.

Didn’t you say a few months ago that you had a BA in Social Science?

Yet you use scientific statistics illogically ?

You have a consistent habit trying to explain Actual Science Flaws in AGW by using Dogma - Philosophical arguments.

Frankly, If you don’t have the Science Evidence - There is no Dogma or Philosophical argument.

TACKLE THESE FIRST

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is just the top “story” received today from www.sepp,org in their e-newsletter TWTW:

CLIMATE SCIENCE: There continues to be developments in climate science that challenge the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A paper describing research by Lindzen-Choi is being published by the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. The paper addresses concerns raised by critics of a 2009 work. The major finding is that the planet is not very sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases, which, no doubt, will concern the proponents of the IPCC.

The research finds that a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase temperatures by only 0.7 deg K, which is significantly below the lowest estimates of the models used by the IPCC. The range with a 99% certainty is between 0.5 deg K and 1.3 deg K. According to Lindzen, it took about 2 years to find a journal to publish the paper. No doubt some critics will focus on the point that the paper was published in a Korean, not western, journal. But, the refusal of western journals to publish it is inexcusable. If the research holds up to the rigorous review it will receive, the scientific prestige lost to the west is Korea’s gain.

Roy Spencer posted further work on comparing NOAA’s Levitus observations of ocean warming from 1955 to 1999 to a depth of 700 meters with results from IPCC models. The models demonstrate a wide variety of behaviors, including some showing a cooling trend at lower depths. The IPCC also uses broad error bars to show a possible statistical overlap between observations and models. As Spencer suggests, this procedure also suggests a possible great disparity between observations and models.

Spencer recognizes his work requires careful scrutiny. If the results hold up, as with Lindzen-Choi, the IPCC has grossly overestimated the sensitivity of the planet to a doubling of CO2. Roger Pielke, Sr. praised Spencer’s work and has invited anyone whose analysis shows Spencer’s work is flawed to post their analysis on his (Pielke’s) web site.

A third development is, right now, a suggestion of what may come later. Joseph D’Aleo thinks he may have found a relation between solar flux and the East Pacific Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation during the winter. He promises to produce further work after the hurricane season has concluded. Please see referenced articles under “Science; Is the Sun Rising” and "Challenging the Orthodoxy.’

 

[lynnvinc]

I teach research methods at a university, so I know what it [the FALSE NEGATIVE] is.

Another way to understand it (aside from the villagers not wanting to be eaten up by the wolf) is thru Pascal, a good Catholic and the father of statistics.

You can see Pascal’s wager at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager

The basic idea is that under conditions of uncertainty, you can still make a decision to act. In Pascal’s example, it has to do with belief in God: if one does not believe in God and God exists, then they could end up in Hell for eternity. However, if one believes in God and God does not exist, then they have lost nothing, and even gained by living a decent and moral life. (These false positive and false negative errors are also called Type I and Type II errors, and alpha and beta errors; you can look it up here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors)

Now the scientists have said AGW is happening and it’s dangerous, and could be very dangerous if the positive feedbacks – such as reduced whiteness from less ice/snow cover and methane release from melting permafrost and methane hydrates in the ocean lead to more warming, leading to more melting & release, and more warming, spiralling into a hell on earth – kick in strongly. These positive feedbacks are already operating now, and this time, as opposed to last extreme warming 55 million years ago during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum, our “methane shotgun” is more fully loaded, and we are in process of pulling the trigger on this.

However, many people don’t really understand the science much and perhaps don’t trust the scientists, like many folks at CAF. So instead of waiting to reach certainty in their mind, they can think, what would be the consequences if AGW is real, but we fail to mitigate it → a tremendous loss of life and our immortal souls going to Hell for eternity, where, as they say, it is REALLY much hotter than a globally warmed world. And what would be the consequences if AGW is not real, but people mitigate it anyway. They would save lots of money (even without lowering productivity & living standards) and they would solve many other problems, like local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, depletion of finite resources, and perhaps military conflicts over these problems. People would be healthier with less pollution and perhaps substituting a bit of cycling or walking for car driving when feasible.

If enough good willed Catholics got on a Christo-centric environmental movement (seeking first the kingdom of God and its righteousness), we could do much to reduce environmental problems, including AGW. And that is so much better than sitting on the sidelines and attacking environmentalists, such as Gore, calling them vulgar slackers, megalomaniacs, pagans, etc. Instead our goodness could draw them to our faith and morality. We don’t have to be rocket scientists or understand every detail about AGW to do the right thing. And we don’t have to know for certain if AGW is real or not, bec mitigating it has so many other benefits; but failing to mitigate if it is truly happening could be very disasterous for life on earth and our souls for eternity.

If AGW is a hoax, let’s make it the best hoax that ever happened to us, and not get bogged down in trying to gain a Ph.D.'s worth of knowledge on the subject and debate it as if we ourselves were climate scientists who had the knowledge and expertise – probably letting the problem slip from bad to worse in the meanwhile.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t agree with your [KimmieLittle’s] interpretations that JPII and BXVI were only refering to natural climate change and not the anthropogenic climate change that is happening now.

Another thing that indicates to me that the Holy Father is speaking of anthropogenic climate change, is that he and the Vatican have make the Vatican “carbon neutral” through energy efficience, solar panels and buying off-sets, etc.

Again, I guess he needs to clarify his statements, since we (and perhaps there are others who think he means natural climate cycles) have different interpretations of them.

 

[kimmielittle]

Another thing that indicates to me that the Holy Father is speaking of anthropogenic climate change, is that he and the Vatican have make the Vatican “carbon neutral” through energy efficience, solar panels and buying off-sets, etc.

How did those carbon off-sets work out?

csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Carbon-offsets-How-a-Vatican-forest-failed-to-reduce-global-warming

The idea of off-sets is confusing to me, a Catholic.

If I buy them because I think somehow I’ve sinned, as some sort of penance - but continue to sin?

How does that figure into this saying “Go and sin no more”? Or “I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace…to sin no more”?

Carbon Off-sets - indeed, a strange concept to this Catholic.

My Big Brother and I have bought, planted and tended 90 -120 trees a year…approximately 21 acres, so far are now planted. I guess that makes us as environmentally friendly as ALL of Vatican City seeing how their tract was 37 acres…And we don’t consume near the power / energy as Vatican City { Oh Wait!!! Their 37 acres never got planted ]

Notice we didn’t buy offsets …We bought the trees , fertilizer, hand tools.

AND HERES THE KICKER

WE don’t believe in the claims of AGW .

Guess what…WE also have solar panels AND windmills for ponds.

Again, I guess he needs to clarify his statements, since we (and perhaps there are others who think he means natural climate cycles) have different interpretations of them.

If none of the Holy Fathers have used these terms

“Anthropogenic climate change”
“AGW”
"Man-made Climate "

There is ONLY ONE Climate Change left…Natural Climate Change