Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

Try this example: Of 100 people asked “Do you believe extraterrestrial life exists?”, one said no, ten said yes, the rest were unwilling to take a position. What is the justification for ignoring the 90% of respondents who were ambivalent?

To apply this analogy to AGW you would have to assume that the authors of all 12,000 papers were in some sense “asked” for their opinion on AGW. Then the fact that 8,000 of them “declined” to offer an opinion would mean something. It would indicate, as you suggest, that those 8,000 are unlikely to be well-represented by the 4,000 who did “answer” the question.

But that is not the case. As I pointed out earlier, the initial 12,000 were not asked anything. They were just “found” by the first-level keyword search of climate science articles. Contrary to what you might think, there are many research topics in this field that do not have anything to do with the AGW question. The fact that those 8,000 papers were included in the first level search is merely a product of the inadequacy of the simple keyword search to find the relevant set of papers. The fact that the authors of those 8,000 papers took no position on the AGW question does not have any bearing on the accuracy of the statistical projection based on the remaining 4,000.

 

[cjforJesus]

I suggest that all people here stop responding to the totally wrong idea that there is no consensus on AGW. They just don’t know what they are talking about and bring out weird and wrong ideas.

No one (who knows anything and has an open, non-biased mind) disputes there is consensus in the working, publishing climate scientist community that AGW is real.

Just a couple of comments, then I’m never going to waste my time arguing about this non-issue.

In the early 90s before I got internet access, I saw on TV a scientist who was in disagreement with AGW (later it turned out he wasn’t even a climate scientist, but was funded by the fossil fuel industry – and the sponsor for that program was Texaco), and I started thinking that the fossil fuel industry is going to buy out all the scientists and we’ll just be facing this problem of AGW with no one there to speak the truth.

Later when I found out that most climate scientists were indeed sticking to their guns on this issue, I started thinking of them as heroes.

I still think of them as heroes, because I know evil people are harassing and threatening some of them and their children, which sends a chilling effect throughout the whole community.

Also, since 2004 I’ve been getting alerts about articles using the search terms “climate change” and “global warming” from sciencemag.org/cgi/alerts/main, which covers a large number of journals in many fields. I’ve never seen any article in science journals that disputes AGW. In all those 11 years I saw one in an education journal, written but not written by a climate scientist but by someone in education.

I have no idea why people are so adamantly opposed to accepting AGW that it is impossible for them to accept there is consensus about AGW in the climate science community. Boggles the mind. What is the fear? What is the real scary fear that y’all have that makes it worth risking the well-being and lives of a huge portion of humanity, including one’s own children and descendants, on into the future?

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord…and stand up for life no matter what. And I won’t be addressing any of these nonsense claims about how there isn’t any consensus among practicing, publishing (in respected science journals) climate scientists that AGW is real. It’s a real waste of time when we should all be into reducing our GHG emissions and other pollution…as Pope Francis so beautifully and eloquently has told us to do.

The world is not doomed . When Jesus returns all will be restored to a pristine perfect condition and we will inherit incorruptible bodies.Stop worrying.

 

[Karen107]

The world is not doomed . When Jesus returns all will be restored to a pristine perfect condition and we will inherit incorruptible bodies.Stop worrying.

When we meet Jesus on the day of reckoning we will be asked questions about what we have done for the least of these, just what will have to say for ourselves? Did we do all we can for them? The greatest among us shall serve the least among us… That’s how it’s supposed to be done.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It’s not a stupid idea it’s fact. Now Zoltan pay attention!

From this link….com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

Are we talking about two peer-reviewed climate science papers by Cook???

The link you give seems to point to the one-and-only survey we are discussing.

Firstly that survey was totally debunked by all peers who reviewed it. Yet the misinformation included in that survey made it to Obama’s desk and he proclaimed.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

That was two days after the Skeptical Science survey was published in the Washington Post.

According to your link, which seems to be Cook’s lame rebuttal to his peers, he says that:

"97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree…global warming is happening-and we are the cause."

Now Karen that is very different from the scare tactics used by president Obama…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This statement has been misapplied. We must distinguish between “doing” science (as in what actual scientists do in their work) and “analyzing” science (as in what non-scientists do when asking what the science says). When doing science, a scientist must not limit himself by assuming that the consensus is correct. That is the proper application of your statement.

But for non-scientists who are not doing original research, searching for the consensus on a scientific question is the absolute best way of establishing what is most likely to be true.

In other words…consensus is very important when trying to sway public opinion.

That is true…but it’s not science.

I am reminded of a quote by a former head of the EPA when shown that her decision was not based on science. She said: “Science does not matter. It’s whatever the American public wants.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In other words…consensus is very important when trying to sway public opinion.

How is that “in other words”? It is nothing at all like what I said.

 

[lynnvinc]

The world is not doomed . When Jesus returns all will be restored to a pristine perfect condition and we will inherit incorruptible bodies.Stop worrying.

There is still the issue of our immortal souls, BTW.

It’s sort of funny that I’m able to get thru to the End Timer Protestants and they accept that we need to do what we can to reduce our environmental harms affecting other people and others of God’s creation…even if the end comes today and our actions come to naught. It’s just the anti-environmentalist Catholics who seem to reject this.

God knows our hearts and intentions. We have to do the best we can with the limited knowledge we have, and not shirk our responsibilities by looking for bogus blog “science,” and not say, oh well, the world is coming to an end anyway, let me help Him destroy it and help knock off as many people and others of His creatures as I possibly can.

 

[sps49]

There is still the issue of our immortal souls, BTW.

It’s sort of funny that I’m able to get thru to the End Timer Protestants and they accept that we need to do what we can to reduce our environmental harms affecting other people and others of God’s creation…even if the end comes today and our actions come to naught. It’s just the anti-environmentalist Catholics who seem to reject this.

God knows our hearts and intentions. We have to do the best we can with the limited knowledge we have, and not shirk our responsibilities by looking for bogus blog “science,” and not say, oh well, the world is coming to an end anyway, let me help Him destroy it and help knock off as many people and others of His creatures as I possibly can.

An alternate explanation is that those whom you fail to convince are not persuaded by your argument for reasons that are opaque to you. In other words, your bias is so overwhelming that it blinds you to other possibilities. For example, a person trained in science and engineering who examines the catastrophic AGW propositions and finds them wanting.

I’ve heard nothing new in this discussion from the pro-AGW side, only the same old pattern:

-Floods of activist AGW material

-Scores of charts presented with out context.

-A few (very few) journal entries or papers, whose propositions are uncritically advanced as “fact” when if you read the material, it is still a proposition, not fact

-Unsubstantiated claims of doom, and endless lists of what to change to stave doom off (even though these claims are the result of unlikely model projections, diverging wildly).

-Why AGW unbelievers are immoral if they do not immediately endorse mitigation strategies, whose efficacy is unknown and therefore expectation of success are low to non existent (will not result in lower temperatures).

-When the shaming and blaming of unbelievers is found to be ineffective, their motives are questioned, spiritual state questioned.

-The cycle begins anew.

A proposition is not won or lost, it is considered to be likely or unlikely by way of reason, not rhetoric, bullying, or shaming. I have seen very little reason, lots of appeal to authority (especially the authority that is on your side ideologically), and shrieking of doom.

I think the poisonous effect is the use of the debate tactic of withholding facts that do not support your argument, and it is the sign that the person is an activist, with no interest in the scientific truth, only that their voice is loudest. The next poisonous effect is when you question the faith of others when they disagree with you. Good luck with your protestant converts.

 

[estesbob]

There is still the issue of our immortal souls, BTW.

It’s sort of funny that I’m able to get thru to the End Timer Protestants and they accept that we need to do what we can to reduce our environmental harms affecting other people and others of God’s creation…even if the end comes today and our actions come to naught. It’s just the anti-environmentalist Catholics who seem to reject this.

God knows our hearts and intentions. We have to do the best we can with the limited knowledge we have, and not shirk our responsibilities by looking for bogus blog “science,” and not say, oh well, the world is coming to an end anyway, let me help Him destroy it and help knock off as many people and others of His creatures as I possibly can.

If AGW predictions had been correct most of us would already have met our maker

 

[lynnvinc]

The world is not doomed . When Jesus returns all will be restored to a pristine perfect condition and we will inherit incorruptible bodies.Stop worrying.

I’ve been giving this more thought, because it is something I do think about, but am not able to express it very well. I’m certainly not able to convince anyone here, unless they are already convinced, about the need for creation care, with the special need for each of us to mitigate AGW in whatever ways we can.

My OCDS Carmelite community and spiritual readings help me to understand that we must keep our souls ready to meet our Creator at any moment, by frequent confession, a rich prayer life, practicing detachment from worldly things (and even from spiritual consolations), meditation and contemplation, and avoiding sin and inordinate seeking of pleasures and comforts.

OTOH, it was my Carmelite vocation that some 25 years ago helped me to become aware that I needed to respond to AGW in a personal way – not just let others take care of the problem – since I was myself part of the problem.

So struggling to find a good way to put it, this is what I’m trying to say: I need to pray and keep my soul for God alone, as if Jesus will be returning at the “End Time” this very day (or it is my personal “end time”), AND I need a material lifestyle, conscientious of the survival needs of others, as if this world will never end and there will be people who need material sustenance (food, water, etc) on into the far distant future. In this latter regard, I should be working diligently to ensure there is a habitable world for them. I should be giving the poor and the peoples of the future, the unborn and yet-to-be-born, the benefit of the doubt re AGW and do my best to mitigate it and help others to do so.

I feel like an utter failure in helping others to do so, I lack people skills (but I’m slightly better now than when I was young), but I can’t stop working on this. It’s like a solemn duty.

 

[cjforJesus]

There is still the issue of our immortal souls, BTW.

It’s sort of funny that I’m able to get thru to the End Timer Protestants and they accept that we need to do what we can to reduce our environmental harms affecting other people and others of God’s creation…even if the end comes today and our actions come to naught. It’s just the anti-environmentalist Catholics who seem to reject this.

God knows our hearts and intentions. We have to do the best we can with the limited knowledge we have, and not shirk our responsibilities by looking for bogus blog “science,” and not say, oh well, the world is coming to an end anyway, let me help Him destroy it and help knock off as many people and others of His creatures as I possibly can.

This thread is beginning to border on ridiculous.

No one is arguing that we should not be good stewards of the planet and appreciate what we have been given,sheesh.

What the contention seems to be is whether or not man is the primary cause of weather changes.

I tend to believe it is either cyclical or something to do with the sun.

All we need are more regulations and laws and the government setting up more programs to fill their coffers.I already give 1/3 of my wages not counting private charitable donations.

My mother lived through the great depression and it was common for not only Catholics but all who lived through it to develop frugal habits. This is not something original or new.I am sure pope Francis understands this.

I am not worried at all though I do tend to feel we will be facing another severe depression and economic collapse.

 

[Karen107]

In other words…consensus is very important when trying to sway public opinion.

That is true…but it’s not science.

I am reminded of a quote by a former head of the EPA when shown that her decision was not based on science. She said: “Science does not matter. It’s whatever the American public wants.”

A scientific consensus IS important but public opinion matters. If the scientific consensus was that man did not cause global warming than you betcha we’d be proclaiming that, but it isn’t. The consensus of the scientists who have done research into this problem is that humans are the main cause of the problem of global warming so it is important that the public be aware of that so they will do what needs to be done to correct the problem. If the American public doesn’t care, than all the research that the scientists have done doesn’t matter one bit. I imagine that’s what the EPA former head was referring to.

 

[sps49]

…The consensus of the scientists who have done research into this problem is that humans are the main cause of the problem of global warming so it is important that the public be aware of that so they will do what needs to be done to correct the problem…

If humans are the main cause, what exactly does this mean; 50.5%, 51%, 60%, etc? Please provide the title of the scientific publication that explicitly says that human influence is responsible for all of this destruction, present and future. Also provide the papers that supply a verifiable and reproducible attribution metric, or “percentage.” This could be either a primary science paper, or a meta-study that surveys papers. Please do not list links to the usual pro-AGW websites, skepticalscience, realclimate, etc.

 

[Karen107]

This thread is beginning to border on ridiculous.

No one is arguing that we should not be good stewards of the planet and appreciate what we have been given,sheesh.

What the contention seems to be is whether or not man is the primary cause of weather changes.

I tend to believe it is either cyclical or something to do with the sun.
.

Actually if you read the comments there are people who oddly believe we don’t have a problem with global warming and that they don’t need to change their way of living. Todays reading really spoke to me on this discussion.

usccb.org/bible/readings/081715.cfm

It was about the ten commandments and in the homily Our Priest spoke of a interview with director Cecile B Demille about the Ten Commandments and which commandment he thought was the one broken the most and he thought it was the first. Why? Because people often put possessions before God. That’s true of many people and I believe all of us are guilty of that from time to time even the bests of Catholics. It is that idolatry that causes us to not think of others and not be good stewards of Gods creations. People may feel happy at home thinking that if they aren’t personally affected by the weather, that there must be nothing to this but if they were affected, as those who experience the storms and flooding, and drought… Well they might just think twice that God is giving them a sign from heaven, indicating that things are amiss… The point is, we should be paying attention to the signs and really acknowledge that we could do more. I believe that quite possibly Superstorm Sandy was one of those signs where God showed us just how powerful His wrath can be which we are quite helpless against. Ironically that Storm came in just after the democratic national convention voted for or against including the language of God in government and God was denied 3x but narrowly made it in due to the Chairmens final decision … I suppose that would make God mad. It makes me think that maybe it is our sinful ways and most especially idolatry which is causing this world to deteriorate at a faster pace. Anyway, I’m just voicing my thoughts. To not be a steward of our planet is a sin and something we should ask for Gods forgiveness about and work to correct…

 

[Karen107]

If humans are the main cause, what exactly does this mean; 50.5%, 51%, 60%, etc? Please provide the title of the scientific publication that explicitly says that human influence is responsible for all of this destruction, present and future. Also provide the papers that supply a verifiable and reproducible attribution metric, or “percentage.” This could be either a primary science paper, or a meta-study that surveys papers. Please do not list links to the usual pro-AGW websites, skepticalscience, realclimate, etc.

Does it matter? What really matters is we can do more to reduce our CO2 output. To live a more self sustainable ‘cleaner’ way without hurting the future generations is a win win win situation! From a spiritual standpoint I do believe that the devil likes to wallow in filth and cleanliness is next to godliness!

 

[sps49]

Actually if you read the comments there are people who oddly believe we don’t have a problem with global warming and that they don’t need to change their way of living.

Nothing odd about rejecting propositions that are flimsy at best, and dishonest at worst.

 

[sps49]

Does it matter? What really matters is we can do more to reduce our CO2 output. To live a more self sustainable ‘cleaner’ way without hurting the future generations is a win win win situation! From a spiritual standpoint I do believe that the devil likes to wallow in filth and cleanliness is next to godliness!

This is the sound of retreat: “does it matter?”

Of course it matters to critically and rationally examine issues.

 

[cjforJesus]

Actually if you read the comments there are people who oddly believe we don’t have a problem with global warming and that they don’t need to change their way of living. Todays reading really spoke to me on this discussion.

usccb.org/bible/readings/081715.cfm

It was about the ten commandments and in the homily Our Priest spoke of a interview with director Cecile B Demille about the Ten Commandments and which commandment he thought was the one broken the most and he thought it was the first. Why? Because people often put possessions before God. That’s true of many people and I believe all of us are guilty of that from time to time even the bests of Catholics. It is that idolatry that causes us to not think of others and not be good stewards of Gods creations. People may feel happy at home thinking that if they aren’t personally affected by the weather, that there must be nothing to this but if they were affected, as those who experience the storms and flooding, and drought… Well they might just think twice that God is giving them a sign from heaven, indicating that things are amiss… The point is, we should be paying attention to the signs and really acknowledge that we could do more. I believe that quite possibly Superstorm Sandy was one of those signs where God showed us just how powerful His wrath can be which we are quite helpless against. Ironically that Storm came in just after the democratic national convention voted for or against including the language of God in government and God was denied 3x but narrowly made it in due to the Chairmens final decision … I suppose that would make God mad. It makes me think that maybe it is our sinful ways and most especially idolatry which is causing this world to deteriorate at a faster pace. Anyway, I’m just voicing my thoughts. To not be a steward of our planet is a sin and something we should ask for Gods forgiveness about and work to correct…

Personally I don’t think aircraft should be making clouds.That is just wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Nothing odd about rejecting propositions that are flimsy at best, and dishonest at worst.

Agreed-when people start claiming a storm hitting the east coast is a message from God on AGW we have definitely have entered the twilight Zone.

 

[estesbob]

Actually if you read the comments there are people who oddly believe we don’t have a problem with global warming and that they don’t need to change their way of living. Todays reading really spoke to me on this discussion.

usccb.org/bible/readings/081715.cfm

It was about the ten commandments and in the homily Our Priest spoke of a interview with director Cecile B Demille about the Ten Commandments and which commandment he thought was the one broken the most and he thought it was the first. Why? Because people often put possessions before God. That’s true of many people and I believe all of us are guilty of that from time to time even the bests of Catholics. It is that idolatry that causes us to not think of others and not be good stewards of Gods creations. People may feel happy at home thinking that if they aren’t personally affected by the weather, that there must be nothing to this but if they were affected, as those who experience the storms and flooding, and drought… Well they might just think twice that God is giving them a sign from heaven, indicating that things are amiss… The point is, we should be paying attention to the signs and really acknowledge that we could do more. I believe that quite possibly Superstorm Sandy was one of those signs where God showed us just how powerful His wrath can be which we are quite helpless against. Ironically that Storm came in just after the democratic national convention voted for or against including the language of God in government and God was denied 3x but narrowly made it in due to the Chairmens final decision … I suppose that would make God mad. It makes me think that maybe it is our sinful ways and most especially idolatry which is causing this world to deteriorate at a faster pace. Anyway, I’m just voicing my thoughts. To not be a steward of our planet is a sin and something we should ask for Gods forgiveness about and work to correct…

Actually I think the first reading was more on point. Condemnations of the People of Israel for worshipping false gods. Way to many people worship Gaia today.