The Dutch Have Taken Holland

Sharing Options

I noticed the other day — as who could not? — that our president was gathered with a bunch of world leaders in Paris, in order to deliver a solemn warning to the world. This message, brought to us by our global elites, was that we should let our global elites intervene to save us all. It was kind of convenient because they were all present at the conference already.Global Gore

I wrote the following in 2007, and have had no reasons since that time to in any way alter or diminish or refine or hedge my skepticism about climate change. But let us not dither with words like skepticism. I am as much of a denier as ever, and I think the whole charade is beyond funny. Let us call me a climate-derider.

We are ostensibly dealing with a rise of greenhouse gases, but what we are really dealing with is an explosion of statist and bureaucratic gases. All the problems that we are supposed to be having with global warming are problems that can only be “solved” by handing enormous power over to the state, or some international ganglion of states. The statists are swarming, shrieking at the rest of us. The debate is over, you idiot. To press the question any further is treason said one of our pointy-headed solons the other day.

But there are three questions that still need to be answered, maybe four. Okay, four questions need to be answered before we resolve to do a blessed thing. The first question is this: is global warming actually happening? Second, if it is, is man causing it? Third, if it is happening, do we have any reason to suppose that the effects of it would be bad for us? And last, if it is actually happening, and it is bad, would the current proposals do anything to halt it?

I answer the questions thusly. One, maybe. These things cycle. Medieval Warming Period, and then the Little Ice Age, and now this. So maybe. Second, no. Our contributions to global CO2 come in around a whopping three percent of the total. And maybe CO2 isn’t the culprit in the first place. Maybe increased solar activity is doing it. That a possibility? Third, why the nightmare scenarios? Suppose this means that all our oranges will be the size of grapefruit now? And the melting ice caps might provide drinking water for LA and Phoenix. Why didn’t all the catastrophic AlGorithms happen during the Medieval Warming Period? And last, no. Even if the blinkered Kyoto Protocols were all implemented, it would make virtually no difference.

In the meantime, remember this. Greenhouse gases may or may not be your friend. But the statists never are.

Climate change is a sham. The science behind climate change is as dark as the inside of a nut. Climate change is an ersatz science, and therefore one that exudes dubiosity. The logical rigor of the climate change community has almost reached the levels of a ruminating cow staring at a turnip. Thus it is that I find myself in an imperfect sympathy with those whose solutions are all goose-steppy. The case for climate change has come unstuck, and it came unstuck as soon as somebody looked at it. I have seen all our important leaders fly to important places in their important jets, in order to plead with me to drive my fifteen-year-old truck a little bit less, and so it is that I, with more of a jubilant demeanor than was strictly speaking necessary, give them the old razz. When I say that our world leaders are a motley collection of statist perishers, I am being careful to use that noun in its deeper sense. When they propose things for all of us to do, I give all those proposals the cold storage eye. And if they keep this up, we will shortly descend to personalities.

Weather changes! Give us power! A storm happened! Make that plenipotentiary powers! A storm didn’t happen! We must act now! The Dutch have taken Holland!

But then, as if these ridiculosities were not enough of a wheeze, we must now add this. Climate change causes terrorism. We fight the terrorists by fighting climate change. When we opt out of having the hotel wash our towels every day, we are letting Abdul the bombmaker know that we are not going to let him take away our liberties. We are going to let somebody else do that.

We are a planet full of tall Dufflepuds. Water is powerful wet stuff.

257
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
27 Comment threads
230 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
44 Comment authors
timothyD.L.DunsworthBike bubbaJonathan Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Evan
Guest
Evan

That meme though. Good stuff.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

How Climage Chage Affects You. Also, Glenn Reynolds’ modest proposal: Tax the blue zones.

Josh
Guest
Josh

Maybe a fifth question: Would the harm caused by the measures needed to reduce climate change cause less harm than climate change causes?

When the price of electricity increases to pay for inefficient power production such that people on low income can’t heat their houses adequately and death rates during winter increase, there is good reason to oppose this madness.

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Inefficiant power production is a problem that needs to be solved even if Doug is right.

Jane
Member

That’s true, but Josh’s test still stands.

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Yes but we haven’t decided how much harm climate change causes.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Consider just for a moment that human beings are by, (O dare I say) design, tropical creatures. Just what exactly is wrong with the planet warming up a bit?

insanitybytes22
Member

Amen! Personally I’m freezing up here.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Probably that most of the poorest people in the world with the least ability to adjust also happen to live in the warmest areas. Meaning that flippancy towards “the planet warming up a little bit” will likely lead to the poor losing crops, losing working hours, facing increased disease, and suffering and dying.

Of course, if you only care about the generally wealthy people living in colder climates, then yes, their outcomes will be more ambiguous.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

You forgot meteors crashing to earth, tidal waves drowning coastal plains and the sky generally falling in.

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: Probably that most of the poorest people in the world with the least ability to adjust also happen to live in the warmest areas. Is it really happenstance that people who live in areas of scorching desert or frozen tundra are also relatively poor? It seems we should expect there to be a natural correlation. If the land doesn’t produce much, it’s going to cost more resources to live there, and standard of living would be expected to be lower as a result. Jonathan wrote: Meaning that flippancy towards “the planet warming up a little bit” will likely… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

No, Katecho, the vast majority of people who live in the world’s warmest regions are not living in scorching desert. Saudi Arabia and the Sahara have a pretty darn low population density. The very warm places where such people live (such as the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia) are actually incredibly fertile and self-sufficient for food production. We can get into the historical and current reasons for poverty there, but they have nothing to do with scorching deserts. And there are plenty of studies on the exact impact that warming weather will have on crop production in various parts of… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: No, Katecho, the vast majority of people who live in the world’s warmest regions are not living in scorching desert. Saudi Arabia and the Sahara have a pretty darn low population density. How fortunate that I didn’t claim that the majority of people living in the world’s warmest regions are living in scorching desert. However, Jonathan had claimed that: most of the poorest people in the world with the least ability to adjust also happen to live in the warmest areas At this point Jonathan seems to be holding two contradictory claims. Do most of the poorest people… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

* Look up summer highs along the very fertile (due to floodplain soil) Ganges Valley. It has some of the warmest summer highs of any significantly populated place on Earth. Now yes, you can find slightly warmer places that are depopulated. However, I have no idea what their existence has to do with what I am talking about. As I said, the poorest people generally live in the areas that are warmest, and that therefore will be impacted the most negatively by global warming. The statement I was making was a statement on where rich people generally live as opposed… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Bjron Lombergh has argued such.
The site Johnathan likes has an article ‘refuting’ Lombherg.
A refutation of that article is on twitter.
If there is a refutation of the refutation, I don’t know.

I will get you the links later (if i remember)

Alyosha
Guest
Alyosha

Forgot Gore/IPCC won the Nobel in 2007. Let’s have a look at that warming graph again.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

Apostate!

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Doug is not only an authority on religion and culture, he is also an authority on the science behind climate change. You know, maybe he’s right. But why does Doug think anyone cares whether HE thinks it’s happening or not? I love it.

duellsquimby
Member

ahh Spike, good to see you again. Gave you the day off, did they?

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

No. It’s just that I can only really hang out here for so long before I need to take a break. But I just can’t stay away. It’s perversely satisfying, like nails on a chalkboard.

adad0
Member

You are right spikie! Everyone cares about what you think, right here on your very own blog!……whoops! Wait! What?…
Oh right , we are on Wilson’s blog, the blog no one cares about!????

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

I never said no one cares about Wilson’s blog or what he thinks. Obviously people do. I obviously care as well. My point is that it’s ridiculous that Doug would think anyone would care about what he thinks when it comes to climate science.

adad0
Member

“But why does Doug think anyone cares whether HE thinks..” ?

Probably because of all the blog comments Wilson gets on his thoughts, including your comments.
Elementary my dear Spikie.

Don’t tell me, are you a blog traffic denier?

Wilson’s logic seems a lot mo’ solid than yours spike.
Stick around, you might learn something. ; – )

Michael Davis
Guest
Michael Davis

He IS talking about religion and culture.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

I never said he wasn’t talking about religion and culture. It is obvious that he’s talking about those things. My point is that it’s funny that he thinks he can weigh in on the veracity of the findings of climate scientists while he’s at it.

Matthew Schraud
Member

He didn’t really say much about the science. In fact he said he doesn’t know if climate change is actually happening. His main point is that he thinks this is all a distraction so that governments can have an excuse to get bigger. Not only so, but talking as if only scientists can read science articles and understand the facts well enough to come to scientific conclusions is like the Catholics saying that lay people can’t come to doctrinal conclusions by reading the bible. All that being said, this post was not a scientific post, it was a political post.… Read more »

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Doug says quite clearly that “climate change is a sham” and he answers the question of whether or not humans are responsible for it with a solid “no”. This is clearly a political post, but the politics of it depend on Doug’s assessment of the science. My point is that Doug is not qualified to answer “no” and it’s funny that he thinks he can. I mean, I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. For example, physicists claim that the sun sends out sub atomic particles called neutrinos that pass right through the earth and come out on… Read more »

Bike bubba
Guest

If you’d attended Logos School or New Saint Andrew’s, you’d know this is the fallacy of informal logic called “appeal to authority”, a variant of the genetic fallacy.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Yes, as NSA is the only place in the country where you can learn logic. I’m actually not committing the appeal to authority fallacy. The appeal to authority is to claim that since a person is an authority on something, they must be correct. I’m not saying that the scientists must be correct because they are scientists, nor am I saying that Doug must be wrong because he is not a scientist. My point is that I find it humorous that Doug decides to take on climate science in this post. It doesn’t mean he is automatically wrong. It just… Read more »

Bike bubba
Guest

Yes, you are appealing to authority by mocking your host, Spike. It’s implicit in your statement saying that it’s “humorous” that a non-scientist is opining, and it’s explicit in your mockery of him as an expert not only in religion and culture, but also climatology.

And who said that NSA was the only place you could learn logic? Nice red herring, and you might do well to spend some time in Moscow.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

Obviously you care. Just sayin….

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

I do, but not because I look to him as an authority on climate change.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

There are AUTHORITIES on that subject? Wow. And here I was thinking it had something to do with measurement, data, doing the math and all…. you know, SCIENCE. Like the old Royal Society used to say, “Nothing by mere authority.”

Douglas Quaid
Guest
Douglas Quaid

“But why does Doug think anyone cares whether HE thinks it’s happening or not? I love it.”

Yet…here you are.

wtrsims
Member

It begs the question: Why does Spike think anyone cares what HE thinks?

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

Wesley Sims eats pancakes on Tuesdays, therefore he doesn’t care what Spike thinks.

duellsquimby
Member

Spike’s not here for a discussion, just for a slightly elevated game of, “I know you are, but what am I”.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

I am not here because I care what Doug thinks about climate change. I hope that’s not why you’re here. There are better places to go for information on climate science and its veracity. I think it’s funny that he decides he needs to tell us what he thinks about climate science. It is entertaining. But I don’t care what he says about it.

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

You do not provide one single lonely fact to support your load of conclusions. For someone who runs a school you certainly didn’t benefit from any Classical education.

adad0
Member

Here is a recent link that discusses “corrections” to basic temp data sets. “Corrections” which generate a conclusion opposite of what the same analysis of the “uncorrected” base temp. data would conclude.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
There was a glacier on top of my New England property about 10 or 20 thousand years ago. It has melted since that time.
I suspect Mammoth flatulence was the cluprit. A phenomenon that may still be with us, one way or another! ; – )

timothy
Guest
timothy
Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Whereabouts in NE? I’m an hour west of Boston.

adad0
Member

I am just inside 128. An hour east of you.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Howdy neighbor. What church? We’re at Redeemer Pres. in West Concord.

adad0
Member

PSC in Boston . May need to check out West Concord. Almost bought a house there near the prison!

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Let me know if you decide to visit and we’ll give you lunch. robsteele at yahoo dot com.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Steve Goddard at http://realclimatescience.com/ does. I look forward to your rebuttal of him there. He shows the same data-tampering that “A” dad mentions below but from the NOAA records.

adad0
Member

Tim, do you suppose we were separated at birth?????

timothy
Guest
timothy

Impossible, your intelligence, charm, civility and basic decency prove we come from vastly different stock.

adad0
Member

I might catch up to you some day!????
Perhaps I might even evolve!

timothy
Guest
timothy

But I lack those attributes! It is I who must catch up to you. (:

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

You might have missed this one.

I have seen all our important leaders fly to important places in their important jets

The implicit argument is that if this were real then the people trying to sell it to us would act like it’s real. We find instead that they are opportunistic hucksters willing to inflict burdens on others that they are not willing to bear themselves. This by itself does not invalidate their argument of course. Even very bad people find it hard to be 100% wrong.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

One might also note that all of them with beach houses on the beach next to that lovely thing called the ocean which they claim will rise to Waterworldian levels… are not selling their beach houses and moving to the mountains.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

You said that out loud. Just sayin.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Did I? Oooops, si~lly me~

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

But you see it’s all justified, they compensate for their own climate crimes by contributing to climate causes and purchasing carbon credits. Kind of like penance, or self-flagellation according to the Climate Creed.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

I got your carbon credits right here. Special price! Today only!

timothy
Guest
timothy

Indulgences.

Bike bubba
Guest

References to the medieval optimum or the little ice age are not facts? Even the climatology community is beginning to recognize these periods of relative warmth and cool that put the modern phase into perspective.

timothy
Guest
timothy

They are hate-facts.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

“we support facts”… crowd answers “Hate Facts aren’t facts”
Once you have the process down you can continue at your own pace.

insanitybytes22
Member

“For someone who runs a school you certainly didn’t benefit from any Classical education.”

Many people’s classical education required them to color the wooly mammoths invading from Canada brown to signify a proper understanding of the coming ice age.

ashv
Guest
ashv

As an author from Minnesota put it: “Warmer weather and New York and LA underwater? What was the downside, exactly?”

Evan
Guest
Evan

“Warmer weather dontcha ya know…”

Fixed that for you.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Uhh… American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006) American Chemical Society: “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004) American Geophysical Union: “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

You didn’t even read what he wrote. He didn’t say “no climate change”.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

“have had no reasons since that time to in any way alter or diminish or refine or hedge my skepticism about climate change.”

“Climate change is a sham. The science behind climate change is as dark as the inside of a nut. Climate change is an ersatz science, and therefore one that exudes dubiosity.”

ashv
Guest
ashv

Yes. The modern scientific establishment is thoroughly corrupt, and will continue to be so long as government policy is driven by “scientific consensus” and funded by government grant money.

The scientists you quote above have as much use for the truth about climatology as a dog as for beets.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

…as a dog has for beets. Now I’m going to get some mileage out of that!

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

I actually LOL’d in real time reading that! An internet first for me. So thank you for that deliciously ignorant ridiculousness.

instead of NASA (were that info came from,) from now on I will make sure to gather my scientific consensus from you and Douglas Wilson!

ashv
Guest
ashv

I’m certainly not an expert on climate anything. But one doesn’t have to know the answer to a question to perceive that certain people have no motivation to find the answer.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Uh, sure. That makes perfect sense. The top scientists in every discipline so corrupt as to betray the very tenets of their life’s work… across the board. Hmm… you drive a hard argument ashv.

ashv
Guest
ashv

It’s no more far-fetched than believing the American Medical Association would have anything worthwhile to say about climate change.

duellsquimby
Member

Exactly and precisely!

Katecho
Member

“The top scientists in every discipline” are in agreement. Science by consensus reached full stride on the evolution issue. Now science by consensus and by Supreme Court decision is an established art.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Are you really going to try to argue the theory of evolution?! You know christmas is coming… But I didn’t get you anything katecho?

Katecho
Member

Evolutionism is as vulnerable as it has always been. The only difference is that more of our culture has been indoctrinated to it, and skepticism is more effectively shouted down, or simply ignored.

duellsquimby
Member

If there is an answer… Just because a question has been asked, does not presuppose an answer. The biggest issue with ‘Climate Change’, is it seems to presuppose the question to find its answer.

timothy
Guest
timothy

your credentials will keep you warm in this coming ice-age.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

timothy, I thought I was burning for all eternity as is god’s plan. Which is it?

timothy
Guest
timothy

That comes after you freeze your ass off.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Excellent! I like to do sauna and ice bath rounds on occasion after a work out. Will it be like that?

timothy
Guest
timothy

No-no. Ice ages and hell are much worse. Credentials will have no value in either.

adad0
Member

Though a certain Cleansing Flood is much better, though not without cost. Beats the hell out of hell anyway! ; – )

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

I always enjoy timothy losing it and condemning me. It happens every 2.5 weeks or so.

adad0
Member

Try and forgive him. I think he is nervous that you might miss out on the Cleansing Flood. ; – )
It has been know to reach out and deluge people,
just ask Saul,…I mean Paul. ; – )

Bike bubba
Guest

OK, great examples of the appeal to authority fallacy on your part, but what about the logic these authorities used to arrive at this conclusion? And, for that matter, what logic and evidence could overcome the fact that the models used by the IPCC don’t have any predictive power? If you want to point to the future, ordinarily you need a model that works when tested against historical data, no? Never mind a basic fact; you are interacting with a fair number of people on this forum with advanced degrees in engineering and science (I am one of them, MSEE)… Read more »

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

You may have me there about the AMA. Too bad I didn’t also list say… the society of chemists, geologists, meteorologists, physicists etc. I am in error.

I defer to the scientific wisdom of the great reformed calvinist pastor Douglas Wilson.

Bike bubba
Guest

Hey, if the best you can do is appeal to authority, you can do little better than to defer to one who at least understands why the genetic fallacy is fallacious. And really, the very statements by the groups you cite indicate that they, too, are dominated politically by people who cannot get past the genetic fallacy.

You can’t get enough earned doctorates behind you to persuade me to abandon basic logic.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

I think that 97% of the world’s scientists is a bit more than an appeal to authority. But if you need to stand up on your cinderblock and shout ‘rhetorical fallacy!’, then enjoy the street corner. And as far as trotting out the genetic fallacy is concerned, I’ll bring you a cup of coffee on my way home and some newspaper if you get cold tonite. it is always the same old boring semi-hypocritical argument? You stand on the shoulders of the scientific method all day long, and then ignorantly decry the same with this odd misplaced pride. So why… Read more »

Bike bubba
Guest

Nope. Still appeal to an authority, and if 100% of the world’s Ph.D.s said so, it would still be appeal to authority. It is impossible to rescue bad logic with data and doctorates.

And yes, we all have benefited from the scientific method, and it’s worth noting that the great heroes of science were all trained….in logic first. What a shame that many climatologists have forgotten this.

Katecho
Member

RandMan wrote:

I think that 97% of the world’s scientists is a bit more than an appeal to authority.

Indeed, it’s also an ad populum fallacy too. RandMan flexes his arrogance and doubles down on his logical fallacies.

What percentage of scientists were geocentrists when Galileo arrived on the scene? Around 97%? RandMan plays the percentages yet thinks he can lecture us about what real science is.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

katecho offers nothing except the usual misrepresentation of the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge.

If a 97% consensus of the world’s scientists is not to be taken seriously. Notice how katecho simply rejects how science works. Randman suspects katecho of a hypocrisy so huge as to be almost invisible, taking advantage of science at every opportunity, typing on his magic computer, immune to polio and small pox, most likely having ingested antibiotics in the past few years for something or another lovingly manipulating his electric toothbrush, watching Robert Tilton reruns on Direct TV.

Katecho
Member

Not content with the other two fallacies, RandMan adds the ad hominem fallacy. I wish he had answered my questions about geocentrism. It’s pretty easy to see why he didn’t.

The late history of geocentrism shows us why it is still a fallacy to appeal to 97% of scientists in order to establish scientific fact. RandMan refuses to learn this lesson. Perhaps someday RandMan will reach for the real scientific method when he wants to discuss scientific facts. In the mean time, his logical fallacies don’t impress.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Ah yes, misrepresentation, then misdirection followed by a critique of logical fallacies: the last refuge of the christian apologist.

I could not have posted quotes from more specific scientific societies, each gathered together at the NASA site with footnotes and links. But by all means, sit here and try to make everything about rhetoric.

Steven
Guest
Steven

You suggest that everyone else is suffering from frustration, and yet the evidence of your rant would lead me to believe otherwise. (How’s that for science?)

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Yes, generally I find the utter dependence on rhetorical arguments a sign of utter frustration on the part of christians. It is pretty obvious. If you had any facts or secular consensus to lean on you would in a second.

Anyway for the third time, anyone wanting to investigate the data or positions of any of those cross-disciplinary sciences need only go to the NASA site (argument from authority eek!) or the mother site of any of the societies I listed. As, scientists they would jump at the chance to provide you with evidence! Go now and non-science no more.

Steven
Guest
Steven

“Yes, generally I find the utter dependence on rhetorical arguments a sign of utter frustration on the part of [the person making them] ”

That was essentially the point I was trying to make.

Katecho
Member

Indeed. Dependence on rhetorical devices like ad populum and ad hominem is often a sign of frustration.

timothy
Guest
timothy

97% of casual observers agree with your comment.

D.L.
Guest
D.L.

You should take the time to look into your claim of “97% of the world’s scientists”

and explain to us how that number was produced. (Hint: Some scientists were not included in the count.)

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Arguing in those kind of ridculous circles, you could claim every quote of the Bible on this site is an illegitimate appeal to authority, and refuse to believe anyone who actually knows Greek because your own logic tells you they must be wrong.

Bike bubba
Guest

Using the Greek as an example, you can actually derive evidence that the particular Greek word means what it does from the context in which it is used. Hence the appeal to authority is not used, as anyone familiar with Greek Lexicons like Kittel could tell you. They make voluminous use of usage notes in their texts. You want to prove something to me? Give me evidence and a way of testing it against known benchmarks. Unfortunately, when the IPCC and others do this, they always seem to overestimate the problem and miss big excursions from the trend they’re alleging.… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

“Unfortunately, when the IPCC and others do this, they always seem to overestimate the problem and miss big excursions from the trend they’re alleging.”

No, that’s not remotely true. In the three trends that seem to get the most discussion (global temperatures, ocean level rising, and the melting of the Arctic ice cap), the pace of climate change has actually been slightly faster then the predictions made by models in th 1990s and since.

Bike bubba
Guest

Jonathan, get up to speed on the data. Please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

I’m sorry, but you’re not even close to reality here; 95% of estimates overstate warming, and the average IPCC model overstates it by a factor of two. In other data I’ve seen, the “effect” predates the cause–this is the case for observed warming since 1940.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You linked a report about a single study which showed that the planet was warming by 0.12 degrees Celcius a decade instead of 0.13 degrees? That journalist (who tries the same slant in all her global warming articles) is focusing on a 1/100th of a degree difference in one prediction as if that’s a sign of inaccuracy, when that sounds like absolutely incredible accuracy to me. You were right to correct me though – while sea levels and arctic ice have changed faster than predicted, global temperatures have increased just barely slower than predicted, though they’ve been so close to… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Tell me why Steve Goddard’s claim that the temperature record has been adjusted down in earlier years to produce a rise in later years is wrong.

Do this on his site please.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

First off, yes, of course temperature records are adjusted (though usually not downwards). I’ll copy the general points from Climate Skeptic, since he’s a neutral-to-antagonistic voice to climate change advocates, and yet even he says adjustment can be valid. “However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases. There are real reasons for manual adjustments to data — for example, if GPS signal data was not adjusted for relativistic effects, the position data would quickly get out of whack. In the case of temperature data:” 1) Data is adjusted for shifts in… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Since urban heat islands can add as much as 10 degrees F to nighttime
temperatures, this can create a warming signal over time that is
related to a particular location, and not the climate as a whole.

Which way should the temp record be adjusted in this case? up or down?

That is Goddard’s claim; that the adjustments are a one-way street.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

An urban heat island is an obvious issue in where the temperature in that local should be adjusted down, if the other nearby stations confirm that the effect is occuring. You might not realize that these changes aren’t just made on some theoretical basis. They are made when persistent local deviations are noticed that aren’t matched in the same way by other local stations where the same changes have not occurred. Even in a place where every weather station is undergoing an increased heat island effect (or increasing shadowing, or anything), it’s relatively easy to track such deviations because the… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Now, take a look at this graph:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/eGO7zwHRpHT5YNBOnH9YGNkEcX-d4AAYKAiq6Lcofiw9LUgrCNjdtQGB2GG56-STXlzs6oaonSDyk2NefISyBjghBdlLrnI_PRUdknrPvLaX2NF2gFg04phC62Jg4NZRXXo

It is true that in the United States, specifics of weather station locales have resulted in temperature being adjusted in the direction Goddard claims. However, the United States is only 6% of the world’s land surface, and globally, temperature has usually not been adjusted in that direction.

In fact, when all weather station sites are averaged, the total temperature adjustment is almost nil. Therefore, Goddard’s complaint has no relevance to GLOBAL warming data, because the adjustment direction he complains about in the USA isn’t even happening globally.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/

timothy
Guest
timothy

Now that is a start. I shot a message to Steve Goddard asking him if he has addressed this or will address it.

timothy
Guest
timothy

It is true that in the United States, specifics of weather station locales have resulted in temperature being adjusted in the direction Goddard claims. I.e. down. In every stinking instance. There have been zero (?) adjustments up. The probability of errors happening in only one direction does not seem very good. The fact that the adjustments where all (most) one way, strongly suggests observer bias and the weight of the argument falls on those making the adjustments to prove why. At this point you are squarely in the land of statistical analysis. Goddard was a signal analyst–a field where those… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

What are the units on the horizontal axis in your first graph? Without those, it is meaningless information.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yeah, you’re the second person to note that annoying aspect of the graph (I had this exact discussion 2 days ago in another setting). If you click on the link at the bottom and scoll down to where the graph appears, you can see that it starts in the year 1850 and goes to 2015.

timothy
Guest
timothy

It appears that you got that graph from Politifact. In the article you link to, the data source is Steve Goddard. Look what Politifact concludes with: The allegations raised by skeptics like the author of The Telegraph item have had no effect on the consensus that the Earth has seen an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years. This claim has been debunked before. This is an appeal to ‘consensus’; not a refutation. Politifact cannot argue the data and neither can you. Since you relied on politifact for that data, I am going to see if you relied on… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The graph did not come from Politfact, it was simply reported on within Politifact. The graph came from an international group of independent researchers whose dedicated purpose is to work with the raw climate data and analyze it to check the accuracy of the adjustment claims and conclusions that other climate scientists are making. That aside, Politifact’s statement that the allegations “had no effect on the consensus” was the conclusion at the very end of their article that resulted from an impression train of data and reasoning. That statement came AFTER the issue was proven through other means, and was… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

I talked to Steve. He said the politifact article was b.s. and they ignored him when he demanded a retraction.

The x-axis was not delineated in any units. Ergo, it measures anything and nothing. If that is your definition of proof, then its a low bar.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The x-axis deliniates the time period from 1850 to 2015. It is measured in years, 165 to be exact. That is explained in the text.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Here is Steve’s response to my inquiry. He does address global temps and shows that your claim that “global temp adjustment is almost nil’ is not correct:

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/biggest-fraud-in-science-history-the-nasanoaa-surface-temperature-record/

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The first graph, from 2002 to 2016, shows a tiny portion of the dataset and nothing particularly odd at all within it, simply a larger variation in some years and close approximation to the raw data in others. That exact same graph shown from 1850 to 2015 (rather than that tiny self-selected area) shows how small those annual deviations are to the whole trend. I don’t even see what he thinks the other graphs show. There are literally dozens of different sources across the internet, many of them independent of each other, which analyze and discuss this data and the… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Johnathan, Thank you. This was an excellent rebuttal of my position and you have led me to re-examine my premises. Steve’s expertise is signal analysis which is heavily dependent on stats. He looks at the datasets as datasets and questions the assumptions. If I had the statistical chops to debate Steve, I would. Since I do not have those skills, I cannot engage him. When I do have the bandwith to reaquire those skills (I have asked the Lord to let me re-orient my time and talents along study) I will be able to engage. Curry and Watts are credible*… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Johnathan, From Curry’s link on Twitter http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/Read that Curry post. Curry writes: Who do I include in the technical skeptical blogosphere? Tamino, Moyhu, Blackboard, Watts, Goddard, ClimateAudit, Jeff Id, Roman M. There are others, but the main discriminating factor is that they do data analysis, and audit the data analysis of others. Are all of these ‘skeptics’ in the political sense? No – Tamino and Moyhu definitely run warm, with Blackboard and a few others running lukewarm. Of these, Goddard is the most skeptical of AGW. There is most definitely no tribalism among this group. It is my strong opinion… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Timothy, you made some very very kind comments there, and earlier, and are discussing this well. Thank you. The issue that “Steve Goddard” points out here (zombie weather stations and/or estimates in place of raw data) is different from the earlier claim I was mentioning (real raw data adjusted due to local changes in recording). The claim that the NCDC continues to include estimated data from old stations that no longer used – true, and they have a defense for it. (Though others have criticized them, mostly because it gives unnecessary ammunition to critics.) The biggest problem I see is… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Johnathan
The Reproducibility Project showed that ~2/3 of experiments presented in top psychology journals could not be replicated. i.e most of the top scientists lied through their teeth.

Why does this phenomena stop with Psychology?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Look at your own assumptions for a moment. Your statement contains the obvious assumption that the scientists carrying out the Reproducibility Project honestly gauged the reproducibility of the experiments. So even in your attempt to discredit scientists, you’re showing that you actually believe that they do honest work, even in a study so politically charged as the reproducibility and trustworthiness of their own field. Now, the negative results from the Reproducibility Project were certainly striking and significant, though you’re exaggerating a little bit (depending on how you measure, you could say somewhere from 36-47% were replicated, varying on whether you’re… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Jonathan, I was cognizant of your “its turtles all the way down” analogy when I commented. We are not talking about a random population, we are talking a self-selected group of top-notch scientists. What is your level of acceptable fraud and lying? Mine is zero.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

There’s no such “self-selected group of top-notch scientists”. There are thousands of studies published by thousands of psychologists in such journals each year. The way to get published is to submit a paper that is meaningful and high-quality enough to be deemed worthy of publication (like any human endeavor, who you are and who you know will influence the process, but they are not the biggest factors.) Is it possible to commit fraud while submitting an And yes, zero % fraud would be the goal. However, when that’s not even possible in the church, or any chosen subsection of the… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

2/3 could not be replicated. What is your limit for acceptable science? 1/2? 1/3? 1/4? Remember, it is from these “studies” that “experts” tell us why policies must be implemented. However, when that’s not even possible in the church, or any chosen subsection of the church, how to do expect it to be possible in any other group? When mistakes are made, I expect confession and correction. Feynman’s attitude is my attitude. We should look for reasons why our thinking is wrong and invite criticism and destruction of our models. For every one that cannot be replicated, I expect that… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Ideally, 90-95% of studies should be replicable if the actual conditions are matched. Of course, in some of the studies the actual conditions were not matched (like in the example given, room decision-making processes will look substantially different at a residential campus than at a commuter campus, so studies done at two different sites will show different results). So it’s difficult to tell exactly what % of the studies “could” be replicated, and what % of the studies were not replicated due to meaningful differences in the conditions. The article I already posted gives the answer to your objection. Scientific… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hi Johnathan, When confronting the Second Hand Smoke fraud with a bunch of very earnest students, the late Michael Crichton mentioned that you ‘really want to be above the “92%” confidence level” (I forget the actual level) and that the second hand smoke studies did not meet that. ergo, I think your > 90% figure is reasonably close. Crichton had a mathematical reason in mind that I wish I knew. I did some surfing of the site you linked and my confidence in them is not good. That could improve, but it will take time. Specifically, the article rebutting the… Read more »

Bike bubba
Guest

No, I’m noting that a leaked IPCC summary of temperature models based on dozens of models and hundreds of published papers found that all of them missed the pause in warming since 1995 or so, and most of them predict twice actual warming over a given time period.

Try looking at the report again. Sorry, but you don’t get to beat up a straw man here without me calling you on it.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

There has been no “pause in warming” since 1995.

There was a El Nino peak in 1997, and global warming has been somewhat slower in the years since then, but still within the predicted range. That’s right there in the link I provided.

This also explains:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

timothy
Guest
timothy

And yet, we are told that the pause is taking a long time. There has also been no global warming (according to Christopher Monkton) in 18 years.

there has been no global warming at all for 18 years and six months, since December 1996. In his report, Monckton wrote that “the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.”

Johnathan, what we have here is competing claims. Both of us claim our sources are honest and credible. Neither believes the other.

Bike bubba
Guest

“within the predicted range” here simply means that it’s within the range of models that fail to predict the pause and (averaged) predict double the actual warming that’s been measured–ahem–with stations that are 70% located near known heat sources or otherwise with a known “bias” on their recordings.

Statistically speaking, this means bupkus. There are, ahem, published, peer reviewed reports that refer to the pause by name.,

Jane
Member

I think the way this works is, “assuming that it’s going to continue to warm indefinitely, then a few years of it not warming are still within the larger trend of warming.”

You have to assume the trend in order to claim that the amount of variance from the trend is insignificant. But you can’t describe a trend going forward, only backward! This is so basic it’s insane.

Katecho
Member

I’ve seen this attempt at misdirection before. However, the problem is not with just any appeal to authority, in itself. All argument is built on an appeal to some presupposed authority at the lowest levels, whether that is to God, or to raw power, or to logic, or even to the authority and accuracy of our own senses. We often grant, if even just for the sake of argument, certain presuppositions about fundamental authorities, such as logic and repeatable empirical observation. The fallacy arises when someone pretends to employ one kind of authority, such as empiric proof or airtight logical… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Show the science. Show your math please. I look forward to your discussion with Bike bubba on the merits.

josh
Guest
josh

There was a Randman relative ages ago quoting the AMA of the time in support of bloodletting and mercury drops. The religion continues….

timothy
Guest
timothy

The orbital model of the atom….

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

We put a man on the moon…

timothy
Guest
timothy

junk dna

Mark Hanson
Member

Seventies global cooling.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Another denier myth. There were a few scientists in the 1970s who suggested that global cooling was “possible”, not that it was certainly happening. And they were outweighed by a good deal even then by scientists who thought that global warming would continue – the ratio even at the peak of global cooling talk was still at least 2-1 in favor of global warming.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

The thing about the seventies is, some of us were there. I don’t remember any global warming talk back then.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

How many scientific papers did you read back then? How many climate scientists did you talk to? Of course, if your only exposure to climate science was some alarmist article in some popular-level magazine, than global cooling might be the only thing you remember. But what would that prove about the science? It’s true that climate science was still in its infancy in the 1960s and 1970s, and a lot of the work done was far more tentative than what is known 50 years later. (Compare, for example, the advances in nuclear science and space travel that were made between… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Apparently I read the same number you read today if your citation is factcheck. Now since you went from 2-1 to 6-1 I have to ask, did you look it up before or after I posted? Are you sure you couldn’t dig around and come up with100-1? But anyway, I’m glad you agree what we’re reading about climate change in popular-level magazines we should disregard. I do.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I looked it up after you posted. I had read the story a number of years ago some time after the 2008 study of the literature was first published, and didn’t remember the exact ratio perfectly, only that it was heavily in favor of global warming. After you replied, I looked it up and got the correct ratio. What popular level magazines say is of little relevance – it may be true or not true. The much more significant question is what popular-level magazines cite. Take a look at the original articles. In the one that I read, I counted… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

I appreciate your honest answer. My previous response was too pointed perhaps, and for that I apologize, but one thing I want you to see is there is such a thing as expressing your views with an air of too much confidence in your fact claims. As for citations in popular articles, better they have them than not, but remember popular media is an edited version of whatever story someone wants to tell.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Thanks John, that’s a kind and meaningful response.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Yes, such flimsy sourcing obviously has little bearing on what the
scientfic consensus on a topic actually is, and has absolutely no
bearing on the current widespread consensus in climate science.

And consensus has nothing to do with the validity of the underlying science; citing “consensus” as settling the issue absent testable, repeatable, predictable claims is foolish.

Per the late Richard Feynman, we should seek to find what is wrong with our models, not what is right with them. The Politicians and agenda parasites invert that.

Mark Hanson
Member

Well, I was there, and I remember well the fear of cooling and nuclear winter. So maybe scientists were 2-1 for global warming, but all I remember from the media at the time was the prospect of a new ice age.

Of course the threat of nuclear winter is still a possibility…

And you say “denier” like it’s a bad thing.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

As far as I’m aware, there were 2 prominent popular magazine stories that published a global cooling idea. Even the 1-2 scientists quoted in those stories said it was “possible”, not that it was established. Almost all the public perception of the “global cooling” idea comes from those two prominent articles. (If you have evidence otherwise, such as significantly more such stories in widely-read media sources, it should be easy to post.) I’m not sure what the existence of a few stories in the popular media for a brief time 40 years ago has to do with the scientific consensus… Read more »

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

And the funny thing is, it’s only AFTER the established theory is proven wrong that the scientists show anything resembling humility.

Today: “AGW is absolute proven scientific fact and anybody who questions it is anti-reason!”

Tomorrow: “Well, AGW has been disproven, but this shouldn’t bother us. Science has ALWAYS been about questioning and experimenting and following the evidence, even if it goes against a commonly held theory. Oh and don’t forget, we’re fighting East Asia again now.”

timothy
Guest
timothy

We must act now!

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

This is a wonderful chorus line of ignorance. Thank you gentlemen!

timothy
Guest
timothy

Show your work.

Jack Bradley
Guest
Jack Bradley

“Greenhouse gases may or may not be your friend. But the statists never are.”

Right on the money.

Jordan Willard
Guest
Jordan Willard

I am not surprised, At the fact that you deny the reality of climate change and our contribution to it, and that you don’t sight sources either and instead lower yourself to use ad hominems against a straw man for a rebuttal. Do you really think that you know more then many scientist around the world, if so, what degree did you get and how years in college did you attend?http://climate.nasa.gov/…/main…/203_co2-graph-080315.jpg Now imagine, harsher summers, colder winters, floods, and hurricanes all start to destabilize region after region. In the places that have been hit worse, there are more homeless and… Read more »

adad0
Member

Whoa! What if the sky fell too?
That would be like a total bummer! ????

Jordan Willard
Guest
Jordan Willard

I am not surprised, At the fact that you deny the reality of climate change and our contribution to it, and that you don’t sight sources either and instead lower yourself to use ad hominems against a straw man for a rebuttal. Do you really think that you know more then many scientist around the world, if so, what degree did you get and how years in college did you attend?http://climate.nasa.gov/…/ma… Now imagine, harsher summers, colder winters, floods, and hurricanes all start to destabilize region after region. In the places that have been hit worse, there are more homeless and… Read more »

Bike bubba
Guest

Imagine that the IPCC models actually predicted the pause in warming for the past 18 years. Since they don’t, this will be a hypothetical argument….

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Perhaps if the scientists proposed a non statist solution…

Evan
Guest
Evan

It sounds like the beginning of a really bad movie.

“For 650,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide had never been above this line…”

Say it in a hollywood narrator’s voice. It’s pretty cool.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Imagine: growing grapes for wine in Siberia and the Yukon (plant now and you’ll have 50 year old grapevines by the time the weather is actually warm enough for them grow properly), formerly frozen tundra suddenly available for farming – why we could grow enough food for everybody in the world!

Deserts? well, yes, they’ll be hotter, but when they already get up to 120 F in the shade, what’s another 10 degrees?

The problem with you climate alarmists is you are afraid of change and never see the opportunity that it brings.

Katecho
Member

ArwenB: Deserts? well, yes, they’ll be hotter, but when they already get up to 120 F in the shade, what’s another 10 degrees? Just for clarification, when we hear statements about a rise in the average annual temperature of a few degrees, this does not automatically imply that the maximum temperature will be any hotter than previous years. The maximum temperature in a desert may even be milder that season, but if the winter season is shortened by a week, this greatly affects the calculated average temperature for the year. Even a relatively mild summer, if it is simply longer,… Read more »

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Are you terrified yet?

You mean that all of the “warming” is little more than accounting tricks? I’m shocked, simply shocked. Next you’ll tell me that there’s gambling happening here!

Something something damned lies and statistics… ^_^

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Do you really think that you know more then many scientist around the world, if so, what degree did you get and how years in college did you attend

There are also lots of scientists with advanced degrees in relavant fields who are in general agreement with Pastor Wilson. To take a stand on any issue is to disagree with experts who are smarter and more experienced on said issue than you are.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Like the old Royal Society used to say, “Nothing by mere authority.”

Pittard and RandMan hardest hit!

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

We need a formula for evaluating the weight of scientists’ evidence. I propose that we actually weigh the scientists. Multiply weight in kilograms by IQ to yield IW, intellectual weight. The side with the highest mean IW wins. This avoids knotty problems having to do with relevance and prestige of credentials and focuses on what really matters. It weeds out the merely weedy.

Evan
Guest
Evan

“Yes, yes I see his credentials, but how much does he WEIGH?!”

timothy
Guest
timothy

Now imagine you looking at this chart: http://newsguardians.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/global-temperatures-graph.jpg

and putting your fear-mongering over ‘climate-change’ in historical perspective.

Evan
Guest
Evan

Ha! The meterologist that put that chart together is named ‘Randy Mann’. Hmmmm….Randman’s evil twin?

Katecho
Member

Now that is too ironic to be a coincidence. It’s like God is writing history using real accountable people.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

We are denying white privilege and evolution while we are at it. So jump on. :)

David Trounce
Guest

The name itself is a dead giveaway to me. Climate Change. What of it? The climate changes all the time.

Would anyone publish a geologist who announced that he had found dirt in shapes?

ashv
Guest
ashv

Upon reflection, climate non-change would indeed seem to be bigger news.

David Trounce
Guest

I like it. I can just hear Al Gore proclaiming with a loud, steady voice… “Climate Change isn’t happening and we must stop it at once.”

Katecho
Member

I can top that. Evolution just means… wait for it…. wait…. hold… “change”.
Stuff changes! How can you deny it! You, you change denier!

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

Natural Selection just means that things that live, live – and things that die, die. Brilliant!

Katecho
Member

Does this mean that Mr. Nature isn’t sneaking around in the shadows, selecting this and not that?

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

Yes. Not him, nor Mr. Chance either. :)

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Of course there is some chance involved in evolution- most notably random mutation. But the cornerstone of the theory is natural selection, the exact opposite of chance.

(This is where katecho reroutes the discussion to rhetoric and/or semantics. Maybe you can be less cliche apologetic and deal with some facts.)

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

What is chance RandMan? Chance, in your worldview, is “what happens” Chance isn’t a thing. However, God has sovereignly ordained every detail of everything that has happened or will happen, so there is no chance – contrary to what you might say.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

While that is comforting to you I am sure, it is a rather empty assertion to my ears. My celestial teapot answers my intercessory prayers too. I have as much evidence as you.

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

How much evidence is that?

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

If you were sincere about your teapot, which you aren’t – we could debate that. However, we both know it isn’t true, so why bother? On the contrary, you know that God exists and you are suppressing that truth because you like your sin too much to have anyone with real authority tell you otherwise. Everything is evidence for his existence.

timothy
Guest
timothy

What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution? The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution: Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to… Read more »

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

The Discovery Institute is not an organization whose views really require refutation as they are purveyors of ID which we all know is creationism. And no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

Yes, most mutations are harmful, but some aren’t and provide a breeding or survival advantage. Arguing against ‘gaps’ in the fossil record is ridiculous; find a fossil and you have created a new gap in the record. Dumb. To credible scientists there is no actual distinction between micro and macro evolution. blah blah.

Please continue if you must.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Blah-blah back at ya.

The Discovery Institute is not an organization whose views really
require refutation as they are purveyors of ID which we all know is
creationism.

False.

Yes, most mutations are harmful, but some aren’t and provide a breeding or survival advantage.

Not according to our two PhD biologists who frequent the blog.

To credible scientists there is no actual distinction between micro and macro evolution.

Awesome, . When did the first single cell creature evolve into a multi-cell? Where is that happening today? I mean finch-beaks cycle in size every X-years, surely random-mutations are popping up every where, just like finch-beaks.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Read for example the Dover court case verdict re ID. It was all but laughed out of court by a conservative christian judge as NOT science: For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24) A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I liked it when Ken Miller wore a mousetrap as a tie clip during the trial.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Thanks. A judge laughed. That is not who I look to for guidance. Did you see where Posner just decided what outcome he wanted, ignored the constitution and voila! “truth”? The men of the conjecture state that they do not bring religious ideas into it. They are codifying the idea of what it means for a thing to be designed by an intelligence. That is it. It is you and your judge who impute God to this idea. Try again. (well done timothy- credentials!) Its funny because its just a numbers game with you isn’t it? Get enough credentialed people… Read more »

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

I don’t know how much more convincing anything could be than that Dover verdict re ID. Kenneth Miller is a staunch catholic. He doesn’t have to reject reason and facts to still get god at the end of his equation.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I don’t know how … Of course you don’t know. You make your decisions based on consensus and credentials without delving into the substance. ….much more convincing anything could be than that Dover verdict re ID. Kenneth Miller is a staunch catholic You now rely on a logical chain of reasoning for this decision but reject such reasoning when presented by katecho and others. Both of these propensities of yours make your opinions tendentious and shallow. Take a look at Johnathan’s exchange with me. I think he is as biased as you are, but its an honest, reasoned approach based… Read more »

Christopher
Member
Christopher

“To credible scientists there is no actual distinction between micro and macro evolution.”
So much for scientists thinking independently.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I think the only evolution we can see for ourselves is micro. Micro becomes macro if you throw in enough time.

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Maybe, but variation within type does not prove variation from one type to another.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

What do you make of Tiktaalik?

Christopher
Member
Christopher

It looks like a shallow water fish. I don’t think it works as the common ancestor for all later tetrapods more like a dead end. Seems like people saw that it had a few characteristics nessrsary for it to be a transional fossle and got over-excited.

adad0
Member

Up vote!

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

As the understanding of the science here seems fairly stunted, perhaps you might find it interesting that natural selections is actually better described as the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

I think that you may be mistaking natural selection with ‘life cycle’?

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

Right – so what you’re saying is things that live (because they are better adapted to their environment and tend to survive), live – whereas things that die (because they are NOT better adapted to their environment and tend NOT to survive), die. Profound.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

What you seem to be avoiding is the additional concept that those that do survive, pass on their genes. These genes contain random mutations which very occasionally allow for a survival advantage. When combined other factors (i.e. geographical isolation over time for one) this leads to speciation. And yes you are on the money, quite profound. Thank you for that.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Of course that would be how you would explain evolution to a three year old. Which appears to be about the level of nuance at which the discussion is occurring here.

Katecho
Member

I’ll have to remember this comment the next time an evolutionist wants to hide behind this flaccid and superficial definition. RandMan seems to be under the notion that evolutionists never tip toe.

From thinkevolution.net:

Yes, evolution is a fact. Evolution is simply a change in a population over time, and this is easily observed.

Three year old, indeed. I guess if an animal falls over and dies it’s proof of evolution, since it’s a “change in a population over time”. They want us to take them seriously? What ever happened to common descent?

Nord357
Guest
Nord357
timothy
Guest
timothy

Context!

Pastor Wilson, Your post would benefit from posting that pic.

Well done Nord357

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Thanks Timothy. Maybe we were separated at birth?

adad0
Member

“When ever solar radiation has decreased and volcanic activity has increased, global temperatures suddenly plummet.”

Sounds like Mr. Burns of the Simpson’s was right: “Ever since the dawn of time, man has always wanted to blot out the sun!” ; – )

Evan
Guest
Evan

Mr. Burns quote?! You continue to impress me sir.

adad0
Member

“All part of my plan Smithers!” ; – )

Evan
Guest
Evan

“Who’s that goat-legged fellow Smithers? I like the cut of his jib.”

“Prince of darkness sir, he’s your eleven o’clock”

adad0
Member

“He’s one of your fork and spoon operators in sector 7-G.”
“He’s one of your seat moisteners in sector 7-G.” : – )))

Evan
Guest
Evan

Ha! Classic.

“As punishment for your desertion, it’s company policy to give you the plague.”
“Uh sir, that’s the ‘plaque'”
“Ah yes, the de-motivational plaque to break what’s left of your spirit.”

Katecho
Member

I like how the graph references B.C. and A.D.
Nice touch.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Off Topic: The Disqus admin panel has an option to set when/if comment threads close.

https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466243-how-do-i-close-comment-threads-

Currently Mr. Pittard is commenting on a thread that we do not have access to due to some weirdness in Disqus.

You may want to consider changing those settings.

On the beneficial side, accessing old comment threads is often useful for discussion purposes.

cheers.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Still, I’ll miss the polar bears. It’s about the bears, right?

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

I think it’s all about the climate alarmists’ insistence on species purity – they hate the idea that those lovely white polar bears would move off the ice and breed with those terrible brown grizzly bears.

Why, all that miscegenation might lead to the evolution of a new species of bear! And we can’t have the polar bears appropriating the grizzly bears territory, because they should stay in their own territory, because that would be bad too…

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

So let the climate alarmists invite polar bears into their own homes.

Evan
Guest
Evan

“Why, all that miscegenation might lead to the evolution of a new species of bear! And we can’t have the polar bears appropriating the grizzly bears territory, because they should stay in their own territory, because that would be bad too…”

Hey, that’s what I’m sayin’.

Benjamin Bowman
Guest

Doug,

I’ve thought for some time that pollution and all of our disharmony with nature is a product of the fall. Is it too far of a stretch to think that climate change is just another ripple from sin?

duellsquimby
Member

I wouldn’t even validate their case. I think climate change is just the climate changing.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I think you’ve hit on something vital Benjamin. The Jubilee Center (along with World Vision, TearFund, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, and others) put out an excellent book titled, “Christianity, Climate Change, And Sustainable Living”. The initial few chapters focus entirely on the theology of our relationship with God’s creation, material possessions, and our neighbors. Major contributions to climate change are tied into modern society’s fixation with materialism and greed, and our lack of connection with our neighbors and God’s creation. An important aspect of our task as Christians is to stop focusing on the statist solutions of others (which often… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Even if climate influence is real, Wilson is challenging whether we need a statist bureaucracy to intervene to save us. Stewardship of the earth is a moral issue that is already addressed Scripturally, and is ready for application without the need for a statist nanny do-gooder bureaucracy. That was also Jonathan’s point, right?

If we agree with Wilson that secular statist scaremongering over climate is illegitimate and unnecessary, then we can still talk about the Christian duties of stewardship and love toward neighbor.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yes, I would say that the first and most important responses to climate change are certainly NOT statist. Whether or not someone is proposing statist solutions to climate change has nothing to do with whether it is real or whether we should be doing something dramatic ourselves as the Church in order to respond to it. I am interested, though, in those who were extremely quick to propose statist solutions to immigration (despite the lack of precedent by the founding fathers or in the New Testament) but who jump all over climate change merely because someone else has proposed a… Read more »

adad0
Member

Well, there was that flood. Then that time it did not rain for three years. I think The Word says creation groans under our current condition.
Guess it’s all fall down here. (?)

Steven
Guest
Steven

I suppose that non-human factors could be contributing to global warming and cooling somehow. This hypothetical non-human factor would have to be very large, though — somewhere on the order of magnitude of our own sun.

(I stole that comment from another blog)

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Pastor Wilson, I don’t believe you understand the actual significance of “Our contributions to global CO2 come in around a whopping three percent of the total. ” Without our emissions, CO2 is roughly balanced. With our emmissions (and adding in the fact that we’ve cut down a good % of the world’s forests that eliminate CO2), the amount of CO2 consistently rises every single year. If that’s hard to understand, think of a swimming pool in your backyard, with a pump that consistently pumps out a quantity of water about equal to the average rainfall. Now imagine that you dump… Read more »

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

Oh and the increase in CO2 levels isn’t going to cause an increase in forest growth?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Greenhouse growers pump CO2 into them. I don’t recall the article, but sometime before the beginning date on that “CO2 HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER GRAPH” Johnathan posted, CO2 was much higher and plant growth was luxuriant.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I already mentioned that. That’s where the 1-1.5% additional uptake capacity comes from. Unfortunately, it can’t increase it enough to make up for an additional 3-4%. The fact that one major source of our CO2 production is the cutting/burning of forest and replacement of them with cattle production and concrete certainly isn’t helping anything. And that’s not just theoretical – it’s an accepted fact that CO2 levels have risen dramatically during the course of human measurement, from in the range of 200-250 ppm in the 1800s to 300 ppm in 1950 to 400 ppm today. The forests clearly haven’t been… Read more »

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

The forests will grow faster over time.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yes, over time the forests may slowly grow faster, though it’s quite difficult to imagine how slow changes in tree growth patterns can overcome the fact that we keep cutting them down and burning them, or that we keep increasing the pace of CO2 production when CO2 production already far outstrips all current increases in forest growth rates.

In enough time the oceans will invert and geological weathering of igneous rock will absorb the remaining carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, those effects will take about 50,000 years to stem the current warming. So it doesn’t do us much good right now.

Bonehead
Guest
Bonehead

Doug Wilson: Pastor/Theologian by day, Climatologist by night.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Is it snarky of me to call this snark?

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Just watch out for the boojum.

Bonehead
Guest
Bonehead

Guilty as charged, sir!

adad0
Member

I don’no, maybe Wilson just reads at night, sort of like me.
Bet you could read at night as well Ethan, the best snark is always highly disciplined. (sp?) ; – )

http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I don’t mind the Climate Alarmists talking about and practicing their beliefs in the privacy of their own home, but when they bring their religious superstitutions into the public square, then we have a problem.

Ted
Guest
Ted

He calls climate science a “sham,” but I think there are two very real and highly coupled problems that Doug is reacting to in this post, and the actual science is extraneous. These issues are the religious fervor with which the scientific community dogmatically enforces faith in the consensus of experts, and the way in which our government (and media, etc) leverage this. In a sense, both communities are trying to maintain / increase power, and the irritating thing for myself as a scientist is that that the dogmatic enforcement of beliefs within the scientific community is orthogonal to the… Read more »

D.L.
Guest
D.L.

I was just doing some regression analysis when you sent this Ted, using NOAA data at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ . Where I teach (physics), we always like our students to report their uncertainties in measurements and resulting uncertainties in calculations. The NOAA data I have checked so far gives me functional coefficients with uncertainties that are larger than their values. In other words, it is completely uncertain what function fits the data. Not good for forecasting the future, I’d say.

Ted
Guest
Ted

D.L., I try to maintain a policy of staying out of internet exchanges because they are a very poor platform for well reasoned discussion. But to respond: regardless of whether or not you are doing anything meaningful with the data, this post is an example of what I have difficulty with. You can post something that sounds sort of technical without letting anyone cross-examine you (they can’t, you didn’t describe anything you did or any of the data you used), and because the conclusion tickles people’s ears they assume you must be doing things right and throw cheers your way.… Read more »

D.L.
Guest
D.L.

Hi Ted – I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I thought it was interesting that you mentioned basic trends indicated by regression analysis at the same time as I was doing regression analysis. I get the data from the NOAA site I linked. I was interested in the uncertainties that go with coefficients for linear and quadratic fits, which I don’t see presented by NOAA. I was especially curious whether the second-order coefficient would be positive or negative. It was something I found interesting to do. Sorry to set off alarms for you that cry out for cross-examination. But… Read more »

Katecho
Member

This seems like a fair criticism. Statistics are easily abused in multiple directions, and we don’t want to simply be guilty in the other direction. I agree with the essence of Wilson’s criticisms, and they are similar to Dyson’s. Perhaps Wilson could have referenced the 3% CO2 statistic and made a more passive application of it, without granting it any undo credibility.

“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is essential.”

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

It’s the nature and sensitivity of the system here which is precisely in question, but answering this question requires expertise.

It requires a great deal more than expertise. Predicting the future is easy. Being right is hard. And you know this quote: All models are wrong, but some are useful.

adad0
Member

RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT emerituS Atmospheric scientist says much the same.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I’m interested in some people who were very happy to insist on statist solutions to what they see as an immigrant/refugee problem (despite a lack of precedent for such actions among Scripture or the Founding Fathers), yet who want to reject even the idea that Climate Change might be happening because someone else has proposed a status solution.

So if the strongest advocates of an immigration problem insist on statist solutions, we can pretend that’s not a problem on that basis too?

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Proposing a satist solution to a problem has no bearing on whether the problem actualy exists. So it is unwise to be illogical just because other people are being illogical.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I completely agree with you Christopher. I’m simply pointing out the illogical views to encourage commenters to consider both issues from another perspective. I in no way think that proposed statist solutions invalidate a problem.

drewnchick
Member

When the climate alarmists finally explain how awful and unbalanced the world was prior to their supposed Ice Age, when everything was lush and green, warm, cozy, and nigh tropical…heck, if they would even admit/address this puzzling pre-Ice Age condition, then I’ll have the patience to listen as they harp on our current gradual return to those conditions that they say we’re under. When the alarmists next move into explaining the Ice Age, how and why a monstrous cold snap even happened, and why that was a good thing (compared with AGW), I’ll actually start listening. And when/if they begin… Read more »

Tim
Guest
Tim

South Florida is already adapting to measurable sea level rise in its public works projects. Climate change links aside, is it tyrannical for local or state governments to see cause and effect and respond out of necessity? The Paris talks could indeed lead to statist tyranny, but meanwhile, local yokels on the ground and those who govern them are having to adapt.