R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No, there are real climate scientists, and meterologists are just as far from being climate scientists (weather is not the same thing as climate), as are geologists, as are engineers, as are statisticians, etc – unless they make climate science their focus and study – not as amateurs, but as professional scientists. That is the minimum requirement & first step. Saying meterologists are the closest thing to climate scientists is like saying medical doctors are the closest thing to public health researchers (tho I do know some medical doctors who think they are experts in every field there is); or psychologists are the closest thing to sociologists. Would you go to a barber for brain surgery? Maybe in the past, but now we have actual brain surgeons. Likewise we now have actual climate scientists.
Most of you are experts in one field or another, and you know what I mean – there are some people who think they know everything in your field, when they don’t even know all of the basics. It’s like a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
However, people can study a new field and get into it, but they have to do their homework and study it in depth to actually be in that field. The NWS meteorologist we invited has done research and published, but in the area of meteorology, not climate science; however, he has studied climate change as an amateur, and his knowledge of it jives with knowledge I’ve gleaned over the years.
There was another NWS meteorologist, Pat Neuman – a hydrologist – who was warning in the 1990s and early 2000s that climate change is projected to cause more and greater flooding in the upper midwest. He was not a climate scientist (and never claimed to be one), but had studied quite a bit about it, and came out with his warning. The NWS warned him he was not to speak out about climate change (it was a forbidden topic for meteorologists – but I guess only forbidden if they agree with climate science, but not if they disagree). Ultimately they fired him a year or so before he was eligible for pension. Right around the time more frequent and severe flooding was doing extreme damage in the upper Midwest.
So I guess he would NOT count in your list of meteorologists, since he had been fired.
A weatherman on WGN in Chicago, Tom Skilling, was a climate denialist, and for the life of me I couldn’t figure it out why (he seemed like such a good and sincere guy) …until his brother was imprisoned for the Enron scandal.
I would not consider what meteorologists in general think as a good indication of what climate science is saying. Better to read the actual science than to rely on opinion polls of non-experts.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would not go to a “climatologist” who is actually a entymologist by education and training any more than I would go to a public health researcher for knee replacement surgery.
You do know, don’t you, that meteorologists DID predict the floods you were talking about. Also the midwest drought and the storm confluence that resulted in Sandy? Meteorologists aren’t all on TV telling you whether or not it will rain on your city tomorrow. There are also those who study cyclical patterns; patterns that some use to bolster their “climate change” arguments no matter what they do.
The facts remain that the majority of meteorologists are not believers in MMGW and that there is actually no such thing as a “climate scientist” per se; just a lot of guys and gals from other disciplines who write articles for each others’ edification and for grant money. Meteorology actually is a scientific discipline.
E
Ender
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Of course, meteorology is a well-established field and has greatly improved over time in explaining, understanding, and predicting weather.
Maybe the difference between meteorology and climate science is sort of like the difference between micro-economics and macro-economics. Those who specialize in one area would know the general things about the other area, but might not be well versed in doing complex, difficult science in that area, as they are in their own.
So we can think of:
- the micro-level of weather (local, short-term events);
- the meso-level of regional, longer term events, like el ninos and arctic oscillations, etc.; and
- the macro-level of climate (very long term pattern over larger regions and the whole world).
The point is meteorologists do not have to know about climate, esp climate change, since it changes so very slowly, and we’d consider them derelict in their duties if they focused a lot on climate, taking time away from studying weather. And that is why our NWS meteorologist guest speaker made it clear climate change was his hobby he pursued in his spare time.
Another thing is that the principles and forces that explain climate change are different from the ones that explain weather fluctuation – they are actually fewer and simpler: Solar irradiance reaching earth, albedo (level of whiteness/lightness around the earth), earth wobble & irregular orbit, solar irradiance short-term cycles (15 years or so), the sun’s ever so increasing irradiance as it heads toward self-destruction in some 5 billion years, greenhouse gases that trap heat – both as feedbacks to changing climate and some as forcings contributing to long term climate change.
On the other hand climate change is complex in that it involves impact on many earth systems, and is impacted by earth systems. For instance, how many plants are on earth in a given decade/century to uptake the CO2, or how many termites there are to break down tough woody stuff and release methane – so, yes, entymology is pertinent to climate, but not to weather. (I hope people are not going to go around blaming termites for climate changethey already get a bad wrap
.) Also, if climate change is reducing bees, that’s important for us, since we need them to pollinate plants.So while the factors that cause climate to change (get warmer or cooler) are few and simple, the causes of these and repercussions of the changes are very complex, and involve many fields – glaciology, … , and, yes, entymology.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’m just happy that our higher level clergy are applying moral principles to problems scientists have found. Which is what I’ve been doing.
One does not have to be a climate scientist (or rocket scientist) to accept finding of the experts and install efficient lighting.
So I guess the strategy now is to slander the experts or say they are not experts and there is no basis for their claims, and in that way discredit their research and findings. The only problem is, it doesn’t fool the earth systems, that are responding to the heat imbalance in natural ways, ordained by God.
J
jwinch2
Guest
When you have a moment, I’d welcome an answer to the questions I posed to you above in response to a comment you made to one of my posts. I know you are likely busy, so no hurry.
Peace,
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not sure what question you referred to. I thought the last ones you asked were rhetorical. But if you want a serious answer, then I can not possibly know you well enough to answer about you specifically. I try and avoid reformulating people’s position.
I truly do not understand why a very general and reasonable statement, containing only guidelines, is getting so much heat. It is not like they said we need to convert to wind energy, shut down coal production, stop drilling, etc.
J
jwinch2
Guest
My responses were a result of you asking the following:
And no, my responses were not rhetorical questions. I sincerely want to know why someone who questions the science of Global Warming is freely labeled as someone who is pro-pollution. Can someone not be skeptical of the science and still want to do the right thing from an environmental standpoint? Does one have to accept global warming to assent to Church teaching on the environment? Why are these things being portrayed as if they are mutually exclusive?
P
pnewton
Guest
You said your questions were not rhetorical, yet when I answer them, you asked more, even though I freely stated that I gave no opinion as to how environmentally conscious you were. I never said that one needed to believe in global warming to assent to the Church on this issue. I did not portray them as mutually exclusive. But my question remains, what is objectionable to what this group of bishops answered, or what is objectionable to controlling pollution, whether one agrees with global warming or not.
If I shoot a few rounds into the air in the city, they may or may not come down and hurt someone. Different factions could argue statistics back and forth about the safety of such an action. The one question that we would first ask, though, is why do such a thing if it is possible to kill someone. I do not think the staunchest anti-global warming person believes truly that global warming has been proven false. So if it is still a possibility, and a possibility that we can make the planet less habitable, wouldn’t it be prudent to take precautions? If a factory was dumping mercury in your water supply, wouldn’t it be prudent to stop that, even if some people were not convinced mercury poison was scientifically proven?
Furthermore, or more to the point, as the bishops concentrated on areas of greatest need. In situational climates where pollution is making life less bearable and endangering the health of the poorest peoples, shouldn’t we strive to control pollution for those people?
I just do not get how this can be objectionable unless one is either for pollution or against the poor, regardless on one’s position on global warming. The only thing that makes even the remotest sense is if someone believes we can not control pollution without undue financial burden.
You sound like you are more conscious of the environement than I am.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Save The Volcano!!
[in reality, the Earth is nothing more than one humongous volcano]
[do you really think you can save a volcano?]
[in reality, the Earth is nothing more than one humongous volcano]
[do you really think you can save a volcano?]
J
jwinch2
Guest
You hadn’t answered them. This is the first post in which you addressed my questions.
Your earlier post certainly came across to me that someone who did not believe in global warming or who had concerns about the bishops endorsing the hypothesis had to be pro-pollution. However, since you state that this was not your intent, it is probable that I misunderstood your post, and I take you at your word.
As for your question, what is objectionable is the consistency with which things which are not part of the deposit of Faith are presented as if they are. You can see this thread for some prime examples. In addition, what is objectionable is the consistency with which some bishops speak on areas in which they have no competence beyond the provision of moral guidance.
Contrary to popular opinion, the bishops do not have to weigh in on every policy, bill, program, etc. that comes down the pike. If they are asked a question on the best way to help the poor or a specific policy, they can certainly explain that the Church provides moral principles for helping the poor but that she does not endorse specific policies and that reasonable people of good will can want what is best for the poor but still disagree on specific policies. Then, they can ,go on to explain what the Church actually does teach. In this case, when asked for assistance, it would be very easy for the bishops to have said the truth which is that the Church has no teaching on Global Warming, that she has not accepted or rejected that particular scientific hypothesis, and then gone on to present what the Church does in fact teach regarding environmental stewardship.
I love the bishops, and I pray for them daily, but when bishops allow their personal opinions on issues where they have no specific expertise to be presented through some sort of official capacity, it causes confusion among the faithful. Some try to use this as endorsement of the Church for certain political, policy, or scientific issues (again, see this thread for a prime example). Others are simply confused about what does, or does not, constitute Church teaching, and I think we have had enough of that.
Actually, many do. When I talk with them, I argue the same position, the science is inconclusive, for reasons I have already noted above. Then, I use an argument very similar to one you made earlier, regardless of whether it is true or not, shouldn’t we leave things better than we found them? Can anyone make a rational argument that pollution is good? I don’t have a problem with your logic in that regard, merely tying it into belief or disbelief in global warming and support for this statement by the bishops.
I certainly agree that we have a moral obligation to take care of the planet and to be good stewards of God’s creation and gift to us. Global warming however, is a hypothesis, and the Church has neither officially accepted it or refuted it.
Of course, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Its quite easy. One can believe we are morally accountable for the care of the planet in which God gave us to live, and still believe that the science behind global warming is flawed or inconclusive.
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, that is kind of begging the question, isn’t it. I think they only presented moral guidance (their area of competence). They think they did. You do not.
And contrary to opinion here, they can surely decide to weigh in on every opinion in which they see a moral component within the guidelines of established social justice an moral theology, especially when requested of the government for a moral opinion.
Agreed. But they still can give the moral guidelines that should have bearing based on the current scientific opinion, true or false.
If we thought we were about to be whammed by an asteroid, a bishop could make a moral statement that life is precious enough that we should divert it without weighing in on the mathmatics involved in calculating the trajectory, even if there were people who did not believe the asteroid would strike, or in asteroids, or in space.
P
pnewton
Guest
So which statement did you find objectionable?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I believe that “climate change” is another excuse for the government to take more of taxpayer money to give it to the funding of abortions, the “gay” agenda, election campaigns, and other corrupt causes. Today’s government is too ingrained with hypocrisy and corruption to be trusted.
E
Ender
Guest
What moral principle is involved in determining whether the science behind the theory of AGW is valid?
We’re far beyond efficient lighting and the church is well advised not to get involved in scientific disputes. She is no better placed to comment on global warming today than she was to weigh in on the theory of geocentrism with Galileo.
My objective on this thread is simply to refute the claim that there is a moral choice involved and that the church has identified which scientific position is moral and which is not. That claim is simply untrue.
Ender
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Great point. The Church should not endorse a scientific position since science is often wrong. And today’s science seems heavily influenced by political agendas.
J
JackyB
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Good that you acknowledge that meteorology really is a scientific discipline. And they really do take worldwide conditions into account because they have to (a small example being the relationship between ocean temps off southeast Asia and the north Atlantic and rainfall in the central U.S.) They take the sun’s radiation and the earth’s tilt and wobble into account…again, because they have to. They do take albedo into account because they have to.Of course, meteorology is a well-established field and has greatly improved over time in explaining, understanding, and predicting weather.
Maybe the difference between meteorology and climate science is sort of like the difference between micro-economics and macro-economics. Those who specialize in one area would know the general things about the other area, but might not be well versed in doing complex, difficult science in that area, as they are in their own.
So we can think of:
Meteorologists would be experts of the micro-level, and the good meteorologists would have a good knowledge of the meso-level and how that impacts the micro-level. However, they would not have to have hardly any understanding of climate at the macro-level, because climate does not change on time scales of their interest. We have a 1970 atlas with a climate map that is still pretty good in telling about the various climates of the world, but it cannot tell us whether it will rain tomorrow or even be a more rainy than usual this year. However, the USDA has come out with different plant zones, with the old ones shifting a bit north, due to a very slowly increasing warming. Not fast enough to be of concern for meteorologists, but just beginning to be of consideration for some farmers here and there.
- the micro-level of weather (local, short-term events);
- the meso-level of regional, longer term events, like el ninos and arctic oscillations, etc.; and
- the macro-level of climate (very long term pattern over larger regions and the whole world).
The point is meteorologists do not have to know about climate, esp climate change, since it changes so very slowly, and we’d consider them derelict in their duties if they focused a lot on climate, taking time away from studying weather. And that is why our NWS meteorologist guest speaker made it clear climate change was his hobby he pursued in his spare time.
Another thing is that the principles and forces that explain climate change are different from the ones that explain weather fluctuation – they are actually fewer and simpler: Solar irradiance reaching earth, albedo (level of whiteness/lightness around the earth), earth wobble & irregular orbit, solar irradiance short-term cycles (15 years or so), the sun’s ever so increasing irradiance as it heads toward self-destruction in some 5 billion years, greenhouse gases that trap heat – both as feedbacks to changing climate and some as forcings contributing to long term climate change.
On the other hand climate change is complex in that it involves impact on many earth systems, and is impacted by earth systems. For instance, how many plants are on earth in a given decade/century to uptake the CO2, or how many termites there are to break down tough woody stuff and release methane – so, yes, entymology is pertinent to climate, but not to weather. (I hope people are not going to go around blaming termites for climate changethey already get a bad wrap
So while the factors that cause climate to change (get warmer or cooler) are few and simple, the causes of these and repercussions of the changes are very complex, and involve many fields – glaciology, … , and, yes, entymology.
And, again, the majority of them do not believe in MMGW.
However, a collection of people with backgrounds that might or might not take anything into account that actually affects temperatures but imaginably “might”, given enough imagination (a tip of the hat here to your termites) declare that MMGW is upon us. And many call them all “climate scientists” because they write grant papers telling the grant givers what they already believe. And, of course, there are vast sums of money being sought in the name of MMGW, none of whose seekers seem to actually act in accordance with truly believing in it.
You have made your choice who you believe in, as have I.
- Status