Debunking The Lord of Climate Skeptics

[AndyH]

Just to keep things in perspective and play Devil's Advocate, I should point out that, statistically, one can have a year with even worse climate events and have it be just a number of outlyers that actually do not show any real trend... Just saying...

<snip>[/quote]
Absolutely mogur. I only wish there wasn't a clear trend to this point. :(

Something hit me square in the face this afternoon. I finally grok'd fully the geometric progression thing.

[color=#0000BF]Pretend we have one single bacteria in a dish that reproduces every minute. Further suppose the dish will be full of bacteria at midnight.

When will the dish be 1/2 full?[/color]

The problem with CO2 emissions and clear cutting forest and large areas of Mexico, TX, NM, and AZ burning and then methane escaping from melting permafrost and more coal plants coming on-line and rapidly expanding natural gas drilling is that the rate of climate change does NOT stay the same as we've experienced over the past 40 years since the first few 'warning lights' turned yellow.

By the time everyone agrees that we have a problem it's going to be way too late to do anything about the problem - we'll be falling over the water fall, so the speak. And the rocks at the bottom are large and hard.

(I'll be under my desk in the fetal position for a while...)

(BTW: One Minute to Midnight.)

 

[abasile]

The theory of evolution is one of the most well studied, tested and solid theories in modern science and its findings and predictions so far have been holding up independent of personal beliefs.

I would agree that the "Theory of Evolution" does provide a reasonable framework for studying the evolution of life over time. I further agree that significant scientific advances have been made using this theory as a framework. However, a good theory can be very, very useful even if it is not completely correct in every respect. Newtonian physics would be an example of that.

You might of course BELIEVE something different, but the truth is indeed that life as we know it (including us) has evolved all by itself and in order to explain the world around us no external factors (aka transcendent Creator) are required. Unless you demonstrate, in a transparent, reproducible way, such that others can confirm your findings, that such factors are necessary, you cannot lay any claim to "truth".

Your statement goes beyond biological evolution and extends into cosmology. There is the problem of origins. While there are theories as to what caused the Big Bang and started our universe, we really have nothing more than conjecture. Beyond that, how did the very first life develop? We don't have much more than conjecture there, either. There is nothing unreasonable about saying that, ultimately, we came from a transcendent Creator. Further, the fact that I am self aware strongly suggests to me that I am somehow more than a well arranged collection of atoms.

One should not have to presuppose that there is no God in order to be a scientist. The perception that this is the case has undoubtedly, and unfortunately, tarnished the credibility of the scientific enterprise in the eyes of many Americans. This, in turn, has probably made it more difficult for many to accept the recent findings of climate scientists.

 

[AndyH]

Mr Abasile, you are a very smart person. One thing not to be overlooked though is there are a lot of people who are invested in being able to tell us there is some great calamity headed our way. They cannot generate interest in themselves by telling us everything is OK.

While I agree 1,000,000% with this within the domain of the press, politicians, and the 'denier' crowd, I can not accept this for the scientific community in spite of the attempt of some to paint them all with the same brush in order to discredit science.

Mr Mogur, I noticed your map doesn't have anything over Utah. It should noted that they had what may well be the greatest ski conditions in recorded history, with some areas receiving nearly 800 inches of snow and two resorts still open for skiing through this upcoming July 4th weekend.

Unfortunately, some of that 'skiing greatness' is now holding a nuclear power plant in Nebraska hostage.

 

[davewill]

...One should not have to presuppose that there is no God in order to be a scientist...

One doesn't. Witness the long line of ordained priests who were/are also distinguished scientists. What you don't get to do as a scientist is introduce God into your science without evidence. If you want to conduct experiments aimed at demonstrating a creator, fine, but if the evidence isn't there...

 

[abasile]

What you don't get to do as a scientist is introduce God into your science without evidence.

I agree that is the job of scientists to seek naturalistic explanations for as much as possible, and not simply appeal to the existence of God if they don't understand something. We should continue trying to understand whatever we can about the origins of life and the universe. That said, as a human being, I can't help but step back and admire the grandeur and design of it all. That is where faith comes in.[/quote]

If you want to conduct experiments aimed at demonstrating a creator, fine, but if the evidence isn't there...

I don't know if it will ever be possible to completely prove the existence of God. I think there will always be an element of faith. From a scientific point of view, I am not interested in trying to prove that my faith is correct, merely that it is reasonable.

In general, I think a greater level of respect between the faith community and the scientific community would do a lot of good. Among other things, this could help our country to regain its edge in science.

 

[klapauzius]

Your statement goes beyond biological evolution and extends into cosmology. There is the problem of origins. While there are theories as to what caused the Big Bang and started our universe, we really have nothing more than conjecture. Beyond that, how did the very first life develop? We don't have much more than conjecture there, either. There is nothing unreasonable about saying that, ultimately, we came from a transcendent Creator. Further, the fact that I am self aware strongly suggests to me that I am somehow more than a well arranged collection of atoms.

Ahh...this obsession with finiteness. Defined beginnings and ends. Probably very human, since we experience our world form a finite perspective.
But in cosmology, origins are not required. Reality might never have started anywhere/anytime and might never end anytime/where.

In the same way as a circle has no defined beginning or end.

It seems this discussion has become quite sophisticated, so maybe, philosophically, this Gedankenexperiment might be too trivial:
Suppose there was creator. Who created the creator? Another one? And so forth...

I would agree that self-awareness is a pretty cool thing, but in the same way as self-organization of matter does not require a creator, so doesn't self - organization of information (aka "awareness").

 

[abasile]

Reality might never have started anywhere/anytime and might never end anytime/where.

Suppose there was creator. Who created the creator? Another one? And so forth...

The Creator need not have a beginning anytime/anywhere or an end anytime/anywhere.

 

[klapauzius]

Reality might never have started anywhere/anytime and might never end anytime/where.

Suppose there was creator. Who created the creator? Another one? And so forth...

The Creator need not have a beginning anytime/anywhere or an end anytime/anywhere.

Yes, but how do you distinguish the "creator" from "reality"?

 

[abasile]

Yes, but how do you distinguish the "creator" from "reality"?

This is where it really gets personal. I believe that Creator has shown himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ. No one can see God, or even necessarily detect God through the scientific method, but actually humanity has seen God to the extent possible through Jesus. It is through Jesus that I believe in a God that is personal and not merely the fabric of reality, though He is that as well. Unfortunately, we Christians have quite often obscured the beautiful character and nature of Jesus, but what else would you expect from a bunch of fallible human beings?

I realize that we are getting away from the original topic of climate change. Moderator, please feel free to move this discussion to another thread.

 

[klapauzius]

No one can see God, or even necessarily detect God through the scientific method, but actually humanity has seen God to the extent possible through Jesus.

This seems to be a contradiction?
That

humanity has seen God to the extent possible through Jesus.

seems to be shaky assumption anyway (think about all the non-Christians, which certainly are also part of humanity??? If I am not mistaken, those make up about 67% of all people on the planet) .
And then it might not even be true for every Christian either?

 

[Fabio]

Jesus was a very cool dude, too bad his message is so badly distorted by so many these days.

 

[AndyH]

Interesting and well reasoned responses gents, but what about Lord Moncton? :lol:

Science and the immeasurable? Enjoy Jody Foster in Contact.

I personally have zero trouble combining 'creation' and 'evolution'. Why would (a) really smart being(s) not give his critters the ability to adjust the source code as necessary? No need to micromanage that way.

Don't rule out the Koran and the Sufis when collecting teachers and mystics. I expect the Teachers, Prophets, Masters, and others in the 'chain of command' are cringing when they see what we've done to their message with our man-made 'religion' stuff. Yup, we can still mess-up a free lunch and they know it. :lol:

'evening all.

 

[klapauzius]

Interesting and well reasoned responses gents, but what about Lord Moncton? :lol:

I guess it is the same mindset...putting belief over facts.

 

[abasile]

No one can see God, or even necessarily detect God through the scientific method, but actually humanity has seen God to the extent possible through Jesus.

This seems to be a contradiction?

Limited as we are by space and time, we cannot possibly fully "see" or comprehend a transcendent Being. The Bible indicates that "in Him everything consists", or "holds together", perhaps suggesting that God is integral to the fabric of the universe. However, for the benefit of humankind, the Bible calls Jesus an exact representation of God, a.k.a., God in human flesh. No, Jesus couldn't have shown us *everything* about God, but He was able to demonstrate the important, hard to quantify stuff like God's "love" for humanity.

That

humanity has seen God to the extent possible through Jesus.

seems to be shaky assumption anyway (think about all the non-Christians, which certainly are also part of humanity??? If I am not mistaken, those make up about 67% of all people on the planet). And then it might not even be true for every Christian either?

I believe that God has no less love for non-Christians than He has for Christians. I was a non-Christian myself until my last year of college, almost 18 years ago. Among other things, I feel that God showed His love for me by putting people in my life who shared Jesus with me. After years of questioning, deep conversations, Bible studies, etc., I came to believe, by faith, that Jesus is the "Way, the Truth, and the Life". I don't see that claim as compatible with other religions such as Islam or Hinduism; they can't all be right unless greatly watered down. While my goal isn't to bash other worldviews, as I'd rather that we all get along, I will say that I believe there is no substitute or match to for Jesus.

I guess it is the same mindset...putting belief over facts.

Everyone is guided by beliefs at some level. Just as it takes faith to believe in God, it also takes faith to be an atheist. (Being a pseudo-agnostic is admittedly a bit easier.) Many of us have access to the same facts, but we come to different conclusions.

By the way, I just purchased license plate frames for the LEAF. They read "Resurrection ... God's recycling plan". (Yes, I very much believe in earthly recycling too.)

 

[AndyH]

Brilliant!

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552

In a similar inversion of normal practice, most climate deniers avoid scrutiny by sidestepping the peer-review process that is fundamental to science, instead posting their material in the internet or writing books.

Books may be impressively weighty, but remember that they are printed because a publisher thinks they can make money, not necessarily because the content has scientific value.

Fiction sells, even if dressed up as science.

The paper by Wegman and colleagues was officially withdrawn because of substantial plagiarism. Conforming to the typical pattern of inversions, Wegman also appears to have plagiarized large parts of his initial hockeystick critique for Congressman Barton, while additionally distorting and misrepresenting many of the conclusions of the cited authors.

We have examined just the tip of an iceberg of inversion of normal standards of ethics and scientific practice.

These multiple departures from common scientific practice are not isolated incidents — on the contrary, they represent a common thread that permeates all of climate denial.

At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second — all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.

 

[evnow]

It would be simplistic to just say that they are dumb.
While some may be of less than average intelligence, there are plenty who are smart and educated but they are too caught up in their refusal of everything that is perceived to come from the "left".

The fact that we happen to be right, doesn't change the fact that the other side need to be convinced as well.

But science apparently is not the way to convince these guys (99% don't understand science, anyway).

99% don't understand the science is actually being generous. Most of us not directly involved in climatology do not understand the exact science - has nothing to do with being dumb. Afterall those climatologists probably don't understand a lot of things you or I know well. Just the nature of modern science.

 

[evnow]

I've split the theism vs atheism topic ...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4610

 

[AndyH]

So...the question REALLY is... We KNOW for a fact that the earth is warming, we know for a fact what's causing it and how at least most of the feed-backs work, and we know that things are starting to accelerate. What is it going to take for either 1. our leaders to pull their heads out and declare an immediate 'end of carbon' 'moon shot', or 2. to mobilize almost ALL of the planet's population to force the required changes from the bottom up?

If one of those doesn't happen, then I'm thinking it's time to sell our sweaters before they're worthless and give up seafood (unless one likes peanut butter and jellyfish sandwiches)...

Look at Germany...they just decided to get out of nuclear power, scared by one single event this year. So 180 degree turns are possible, even in a fairly large democracy (also this particular turnaround does not make any sense at all). Unfortunately, the global meltdown happens on a much longer timescale than nuclear accidents...so, I would start selling the sweaters now...I wonder, if global warming will lead to more sunshine in the Northwest, which will mean more free electricity for me...

I don't think that Germany's decision was based on a single event, and don't believe it was quick decision. Check out this paper from 2005:

http://homepower.com/files/webextras/BollFoundationReport.pdf

Nuclear Energy and Climate Change
Nuclear Issues Paper No. 6

We firmly believe that nuclear energy is no answer to climate change. A short-sighted
renaissance of nuclear energy would require considerable amounts of public money,
which should rather be invested in the development and deployment of renewable energy
technologies and energy efficiency measures.

 

[AndyH]

http://homepower.com/files/webextras/newschool_text_and_slides.pdf

Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?*
James E. Hansen
February 10, 2006

So, if the Alternative Scenario is practical, has multiple benefits, and makes good common
sense, why are we not doing it?

There is little merit in casting blame for inaction, unless it helps point toward a solution. It
seems to me that special interests have been a roadblock wielding undue influence over
policymakers. The special interests seek to maintain short-term profits with little regard to either
the long-term impact on the planet that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren or the
long-term economic well-being of our country.

The public, if well-informed, has the ability to override the influence of special interests, and
the public has shown that they feel a stewardship toward the Earth and all of its inhabitants.
Scientists can play a useful role if they help communicate the climate change story to the public
in a credible, understandable fashion.

 

[klapauzius]

Germany has tried to phase out nuclear power earlier, but over a long period (20 - 30 years) and lots of loopholes, which would have allowed
working power plants to stay online longer.
Now, spooked by Fukushima, they scrapped all these plans and want to shut down perfectly working safe plants in the next 5 years.
So anyway, the managed an 180 Deg turn, but then nuclear power never was popular in Germany (since the 70s that is, before people thought it was kind of cool).

The equivalent to global warming would be that everyone was pretty scared already, a permanent anti-CO2 green party would be politically well established (globally that is) and then maybe it would take just one more batch of bad news and everyone would clamor for immediate reduction of CO2, shutdown of coal fired plants, switch to zero emission cars in the next 5 years etc...
Now back to reality....I suspect, that when things get ugly (like in the financial crisis of 2008) the ones responsible for the disaster will loudly claim innocence, government will have to bail out everyone (at the taxpayers expense) and everybody (even the current global warming deniers) will tell us that this was foreseeable and could have been completely avoided had we just shrunk government and regulation in time...