No matter what the phony weather crisis of the day, the answer is always more Big Government control of our lives, staggering taxes, breaking the backs of as many Americans as possible, while killing millions of jobs and leaving our children with no future. Thus far, the plan is working like a champ!Climate change that stopped 20 ears ago?
RobOh yeah, while jet-setting across the globe with his elitist family and friends, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to hard-working families. He really cares.
RobWell, if there are too many accidents and deaths on the road, then they put up stop signs and stop lights.No matter what the phony weather crisis of the day, the answer is always more Big Government control of our lives, staggering taxes, breaking the backs of as many Americans as possible, while killing millions of jobs and leaving our children with no future. Thus far, the plan is working like a champ!
How much?
At one point Dr. James Hansen (retired head of climate science at NASA) suggested that if we burn all coal it is likely we could tip the climate into runaway warming as on Venus, ending all life on earth (that would be really really hot, boiling away the oceans, etc). And if we also burned all the unconventional fossi fuels, tar sands and shale oil, it was a dead certainty. (He didn’t consider oil as much of a threat, since we’re running out, but coal and unconventional sources of fossil fuels would be enough to do the trick.) See: columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
Goal of Science - Provide explanations for observed phenomina and to establish generalizations that can predict the relationship between these and other phenomina.
Don’t be so sure. The USA and Canada have a weather nonagression treaty with eachother.
AMEN!
Climate change is not like a classical lab experiment where you can control variables and just study one variable. Though they do have very sophisticated ways to tease out the “signal” of global warming from the “noise” of natural fluctuations due to many factors. That is why it took them so long, nearly 200 years up to 1995 before the first studies could say that warming was happening (at .05 on the null – .04 for winter temps (which are warming faster) and .06 on summer temps).
Global warming has happened in the past. The problem is not that scientists are recognizing global warming, but that they seem to be too willing to attribute it to man-made causes. And we now know that in some cases, data indicating a theory or explanation that is at odds with the orthodoxy is either suppressed or ignored. This leads me to believe that much of the scientific community is agenda driven with regard to the issue of climate warming or climate change. Add to that the fact that the remedies proposed by those who believe in man-made climate change are aligned with the goals of the left: more government control of everything and you have a good reason to be very skeptical of what the mainstream “scientists” are saying on this subject. The climate (if you will pardon the pun) in academia is such that if someone comes up with an explanation that is contrary to the orthodoxy, they risk losing their funding and being ostracized. In a way, the environmentalist left has become more rigid and dogmatic than the religious people that they so like to ridicule.Climate change is not like a classical lab experiment where you can control variables and just study one variable. Though they do have very sophisticated ways to tease out the “signal” of global warming from the “noise” of natural fluctuations due to many factors. That is why it took them so long, nearly 200 years up to 1995 before the first studies could say that warming was happening (at .05 on the null – .04 for winter temps (which are warming faster) and .06 on summer temps).
They do have quite a bit that is testable. You really need to take a course or read a book on it.
For one thing, global warming has happened in the past so they have parameters and a lot of data, and also Hansen’s most likely scenario predictions in the 1980s for what’s happening since are pretty much dead on. He even threw in a hypothetical volcano (which would have a cooling effect), and one did happen (Mt. Pinatubo), with about the same result as he predicted.
Climate science has become very sophisticated now and it is repeatable, universal (also applies to Mars, Venus, etc), measurable and observable – the basic aspects and quite a few others. The scientists are sometimes caught by surpise, such as when the Antarctic ice shelves disintegrated, also that Greenland had ice melt over nearly all its surface last summer – those types of phenomena are more difficult to quantify and predict. And they are very open in admitting that. However, their understanding of these more dynamic processes are increasing by leaps and bounds as they happen and are studied. They have good understanding now (after the fact).
What might happen is that after the fact – after civilization has collapsed and there are no scientists left, bec all are scounging for some morsels to eat and drops to drink (those few that have survived). At that time there might be very good data for very good understanding, but no one to study and analyze it
Why do you call it the mythical dragon of global warming? I recognize that no one has been able to prove it. But isn’t it the Church’s position that because the vast majority of the scientists agree that man is contributing to climate change that we would be imprudent to ignore it in our planning for the future? Am I overstating the Church’s position? What do you see the Church’s position to be? This is not a trap question nor do I have a dog in the fight other than to want to do what is the morally right thing to do. So far I have found no papal or bishop’s statements warning against the scientific conclusions supporting “global warming” but I have found statements in support of them. What is a Catholic supposed to think? For me personally, the anti-climate-change rebuttal is wearing thinner and thinner.
When they figure it out let us know. So far they have a correlation of increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures that lasted about 15 years, then the correlation stopped and the “science” can’t figure out why.Climate change is not like a classical lab experiment where you can control variables and just study one variable. Though they do have very sophisticated ways to tease out the “signal” of global warming from the “noise” of natural fluctuations due to many factors. That is why it took them so long, nearly 200 years up to 1995 before the first studies could say that warming was happening (at .05 on the null – .04 for winter temps (which are warming faster) and .06 on summer temps).
They do have quite a bit that is testable. You really need to take a course or read a book on it.
Vast majority? Source that cites these numbers?
You think this even though the scientists deliberately suppress the research and opinions of other scientists who accept the orthodoxy? Furthermore, the global warming crowd is fully allied with the left whose prescription for solving climate change is…* more government control and socialism!* There may or may not be global warming - but even if there is, there is no proof that the global warming is caused by man. Does one have to believe what the bishops say about global warming in order to be a good catholic?
They attribute it to the greenhouse effect (which Venus and Mars also has). Without the greenhouse effect (greenhouse gases, such as CO2, in the atmosphere) they are simply unable to explain the amount of warming during past warmings. The greenhouse effect is very well understood and accepted in science. A few scientists have tried to debunk it (science is always skeptical), but their science has been roundly and well refuted.
Patently wrong. Any errors have been aired and fixed. You’re listening to the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry lies which they keep spewing out. Get into the actual science and see for yourself
I’ve been advocating Reduce, reuse, recycle, go on alt energy with feasible. Become energy/resource efficient/conservative. And that’s all the gov is trying to inspire people to do. Carrots (such as the great savings to be realized) have not worked, so they’re thinking a trying a few mild sticks to prod people into saving $$$$ and the planet.
Not at all so. Climate scientists are a curious and competitive lot, and will consider any theory that holds promise of water. And they have, such as the cosmic ray theory (which they say might have something to it, except there have not been increasing cosmic rays over the past few decades…
No, not patently wrong. Have you heard about “climategate” in which scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics? And regarding funding - those in academia who oppose the global warming orthodoxy - who “come out” face the danger of losing their funding. Think about it - would a government bureaucrat fund a scientist who challenges the idea that “global warming” (or climate change) is real? (and therefore challenges the remedy for the global warming - more govt. power and involvement?
That’s all the government is trying to do? Have you heard about the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted on failed “green” initiatives? And the connection between funding these green companies and their political support in return???
On the contrary - you have way too much faith in the honesty of government and the entrenched orthodoxy in academia. You should be way more skeptical - especially considering it is our tax dollars which are funding all this research and investment.
Vast majority of practicing, publishing climate scientists – some 97 to 98%, according to studies.
The USCCB wrote:
One was to delve deeper than Fox News or politicians espousing a view that is really an opposition to the other political party. The USCCB’s statement is well thought out; you don’t have to believe it, but you should read it. They have no dog in the fight that I know of, whereas, the politicians do. And what about the endorsement of all the academies of science around the world? Surely, their opinion counts for something. The idea that global warming is being used as a play for more government and socialism is a valid one, but it does not mean that global warming is a scam, it just means that it is being used to further an unrelated cause. The cause of free enterprise and democracy could be furthered if anyone was interested in pursuing it. It could be that there are corporations exerting influence against the case for global warming because it means loss of dollars to them if we move away from fossil fuels. I don’t know-- I’m just saying.
