With the nomination of the head of ExxonMobile as the next Secretary of State, and Rick Perry to head Energy, and Scott Pruitt for the EPA, the hostile attention of the climate change fundamentalists has been fully secured. This being the case, I thought it might be important for me once again to state, within brief compass, why all the climate change tub-thumping is not science.
The hysterical response of the Left to these nominations has revealed (yet again) that the climate change movement has made the full transition to becoming the Holy Mother Church, missing only an altar and candles. And the only reason they don’t have candles is because of the paraffin-wax-low-temperature-burning carbon footprint involved. Every little bit helps, people. In fact, speaking of candles, this religion is actually kind of a weird mashup between the Holy Mother Church and the Fundamental Tabernacles of this world, which don’t have candles either, but for entirely different reasons. So we have somehow come up with the soul-winning zeal of Torquemada, the scientific acumen of John Hagee, and the epistemic lead-pipe-cinch-certainty shown by bellicose JW’s at your door, provided they have been training with steroids.
But Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate, once defined science this way: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Perhaps a tad overstated, but one should be able to grasp his point—which, when it comes to climate change, is not a tad overstated.
So let me get straight to my point, and it is a point that has all this climate changery placed in the stocks, and wants to pelt it with vegetables that are no longer in their prime. There is a vast and profound difference between science and scientism. Science is made up of what we know. Scientism tells you what you had better know, or else.
When someone has done their little scientism song and scientism dance, and then moves seamlessly into the sales pitch, then whatever it is they said at the first, we cannot call it science. When someone yells SCIENCE, ALL RISE, and starts agitating for legislation now, before it is too late, then whatever it is, it is not science. When a furniture store in the seedy part of downtown has been holding going-out-of-business sales for the last forty-six years, then whatever you want to call it, be my guest, but not science. That word’s taken. If the Amazon rain forest has been disappearing for decades now at a rate that could have deforested three planets the size of Jupiter, then it is not science. Neither is it math.
When a theorem is presented, and dissenters from that theorem are treated like heretics instead of dissenters, then you may depend upon it. We are not talking about science.
Science is not what the majority of scientists say. For crying out loud—what did the majority of scientists say ten minutes prior to every major breakthrough? And if science is not what the majority of scientists say, still less is it what the majority of ardent evangelists say the majority of scientists say.
So is it science? Well, is there a call for action? Is there proposed legislation? Are there heresy trials? Is there an urgent sales pitch? Do you have to decide to get the aluminum siding this weekend because the sale ends Sunday? Do you have to decide right now? Right this minute?
Well, then, I think we have answered your question.
Tilllerson is pro-global warming. Don’t assume that he’s against climate change just because he’s head of an oil company. Rick Perry is a political hack. Trust me, he was my Governor. He didn’t have a conservative record until it was popular to placate the Tea Party. Pruitt and Sessions are probably the only good picks Trump has made.
Agreed, and per real science, the earth is 6000 years old. But, to that point and per the 2nd to last paragraph, aren’t Old Earthers “heretics”?, my understanding is that they clearly are. I’m just trying to put the shoe on the other foot for the sake of argument.
Doug–don’t disagree with the religion of science. But are you saying that ice caps aren’t smaller than they used to be? Or that the ice doesn’t affect climate? Is there no legitimate climate science available?
Here’s your explanation. Biggest extent of antarctic sea ice ever measured, followed by explanation of why that still means the world is warming up.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
There is no way to reason your way past this kind of thing. They’re committed to it, and it would not count as contrary evidence to them if you had glaciers in Kentucky.
You do realize that if total sea levels are measurably rising across the vast majority of the globe, that that HAS to mean the total amount of ice on the globe is being reduced, regardless of whether it has increased in any particular place, right? It’s like looking at a starving skin-and-bones child and proclaiming, “But look how big his belly is! Of course he’s not starving!” And strange that you attribute the “they’re committed to it” non-rationality to the people who have a job regardless of whether the Earth is warming or cooling, but ignore that mentality among the… Read more »
Largest extent of antarctic sea ice ever does not fit well with “polar ice caps are melting.” And no, sea level rise doesn’t necessarily equate to ice melt. The total volume of water on the earth’s surface is not static. Some is added by juvenile (or, magmatic) water, meteoritic water, or processes such as combustion or various kinds of decomposition that create water. Nor is the sea floor a static basin that experiences no changes. Both the 2004 Indonesian earthquake and the Fukushima earthquake, for example, resulted from vast uplifts in the sea floor. There are undersea volcanoes which introduce… Read more »
Ugh, Disqus just eliminated a long reply from me with a picture of Superman and “we’re having a problem” quote. Hopefully that means they might retrieve the comment at some point.
Basically, I pointed you to the note on your own link showing you that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic far outweighed any gains in the Antarctic, as well as suggesting that once you start naming meteors and underwater volcanoes as the potential causes of sea level rise, you start being someone who is hard to take seriously.
I’m pretty sure you missed the point about meteors and volcanoes.
nope
Actually, yes, because by your own testimony you think he’s arguing that meteor and volcanic activity account for some amount of rising sea level. That’s not the point he’s making with it at all. I’ll let you think for a while about what other point he might be making by referring to those things. If I figured it out, I’ll bet you can.
What I actually think he was doing was tossing out red herrings in the hope of confusing the discourse by pretending to catch me in an error, by taking my comment about what can produce the measurable rising of sea levels across the world and responding to it with something that can’t produce the measuring rising of sea levels around the world.
So…….,
If the red herring population in the oceans, is expanding exponentially, couldn’t that also account for a small rise in sea level?
????
You killed me with that one. lol
Thank God for humor!
I’m trying to make it my “ministry “! ????
You can only appeal to meteors when it kills off dinosaurs.
There’s actually evidence to support that.
The government/academic complex sucks down an order of magnitude more cash on AGW than the petro industry. I just noticed this claim. Where do you get those numbers from? Earlier we noted that Big Oil alone had profits last quarter that were DOUBLE all the money that Katecho claimed had been spent on climate research by the US government over multiple decades. And Katecho’s number conflated a lot of climate monitoring into that picture that wasn’t even limited to AGW – obviously, the government has a great number of reasons to monitor the climate that remain true regardless of whether… Read more »
Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014. This is from the Congressional Research Service, so if there’s a bias in it, it’ll be in favor of the government/left side of things. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=745047 I’m a little doubtful the link will work. If it doesn’t, copy the title into google. It’ll be the first hit. Just designated *research* accounts for $2.6 billion. Yes, that’s a lot bigger than the Koch brothers’ spending on the same subject. The biggest allocation is for green-gadget energy technologies. That’s where a lot of the real impetus comes from. It’s guys who want to build windmills… Read more »
“In my opinion, sucking money from the
federal teat is the real agenda behind global warming. It’s way for people to
get rich off of you while duping you into thinking you’re saving the world by
handing over your money.” Bro Steve.
You made my collection of quotes for that one.
sea-ice is afloat, so forming, or melting, of sea-ice does not change sea-level at all. Same thing with the floating “tongue” of and ice “shelf” is observed to break off and float away. These occurrences are often reported as “the size of” (insert the name of some small US state here). Marine terminating glaciers have ice protruding into the ocean. Most of this is afloat. When bits break off of this floating ice mass, no sea-level change happens. In fact, when some portion of the ice is held, by force, beneath the ocean, like at the grounding line, pops up,… Read more »
More ice, lower sea level. Less ice, higher sea level. Got it. Now I’m gonna add another ice cube to my drink and watch the tea level… wait, wait, that’s unpossible.
Jonathan wrote: You do realize that if total sea levels are measurably rising across the vast majority of the globe, that that HAS to mean the total amount of ice on the globe is being reduced, regardless of whether it has increased in any particular place, right? Jonathan’s remark here is not responsive to anything Bro. Steve said. Besides that, it is logically invalid. Global sea level can be rising while total ice on the globe is also increasing at the same time. How is this possible? It is possible because the melting of land ice can make sea levels… Read more »
The total ice on the globe isn’t increasing, Katecho. That’s made-up. Your claim about land ice vs. sea ice is nonsensical in light of the discussion. Your “at some point” paragraph is, again, describing a situation that is obviously not occurring, and then implying that you caught me in an error, because my claim about the situation that is occurring wouldn’t be true in a different, irrelevant situation. It’s like if you suggested to an overweight couch potato that his weight gain must be from eating more food that his body can process, and he pointed out to you that… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: The total ice on the globe isn’t increasing, Katecho. That’s made-up. The only thing made up is Jonathan’s suggestion that I said total ice is increasing. I didn’t, and Jonathan knows it. I simply described a scenario where total ice could increase while sea level also increased, in order to show that Jonathan’s original, unqualified claim was flatly false. I doubt that Jonathan will acknowledge that he made a science booboo, but I trust everyone else can see how he messed up while trying to be condescending to Bro. Steve. Regarding Jonathan’s mishandling of my other statements concerning… Read more »
Katecho, I didn’t say that you said total ice was increasing. Read more carefully. I said that the suggestion that total ice was increasing was made up. That was a suggestion made by Paul and given cover by Bro. Steve. YOUR claim about land ice vs. sea ice is irrelevant because the areas under land ice and sea ice in the current scenario are switched, and YOUR “at some point” paragraph describes the exact opposite to what we are observing, therefore they were both irrelevant. You notice how I called those “your” claims, both here and in the previous comment,… Read more »
As Jonathan’s posts get longer, they get increasingly comical in their desperation. He was attempting to be condescending toward Bro. Steve, but Jonathan made an obvious error regarding the relationship between increasing sea level and decreasing global ice. All that I did was point out a clear example of how that relationship would not hold. Jonathan could not refute this example, but merely repeats his position that it is not happening today (which is irrelevant to the problem with his original remark). Rather than represent what I said correctly, and acknowledge that he misspoke, Jonathan has launched into accusations that… Read more »
This has already been dealt with multiple times.
Real world people do not take the time to speak in such a way that they carefully eliminate every obviously irrelevant counter-example when they make their points.
The fact that Bro. Steve started talking about meteors and underwater volcanoes while you find it impossible to drop this imaginary scenario where Antarctica melts down while the Arctic ice growth becomes huge, shows exactly how much you want to poison the well by attacking me, and how little you want to engage with the actual scenario we’re facing.
Look, in the comment just above, you said, “The only thing made up is Jonathan’s suggestion that I said total ice is increasing.” But that’s not the only thing made up. I can come up with many other things that are made up. Therefore Katecho is wrong to claim that my suggestion is the only thing made up!
Of course, that would be a stupid, irrelevant exercise.
Jonathan wrote: Katecho, I didn’t say that you said total ice was increasing. Read more carefully. Likewise, I didn’t say that Jonathan said that I said that total ice was increasing. I said that Jonathan suggested that I said such a thing. Jonathan had clearly left that suggestion stand, and did not bother to exclude me, or defend me as an exception. Regardless, the error that Jonathan made is straightforward. He said: You do realize that if total sea levels are measurably rising across the vast majority of the globe, that that HAS to mean the total amount of ice… Read more »
What have I “failed to acknowledge”, Katecho? I haven’t denied that such a scenario would lead to a raise in sea levels, but that it is obvious not the scenario present and thus is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What you seem to want is that I “say that I’m wrong”, apparently so you can earn mythical argument points. You’re engaged in four simultaneous attacks on the technical wording of various comments I made, all of which deny the actual truth of the point I made, solely to prove, “Look, I think Jonathan is wrong!” Pointing out an… Read more »
LOL, the climate crazies whole incomes and careers totally depend on the public buying into their hysteria. People like Gore have made a fortune over climate hysteria. Gore told us that Manhattan would be underwater by 2012. A bunch of false prophets taking profits.
Total sea levels were rising, quite a bit before Mannkind burned significant amounts of fossil fuels. The process continues. Correlation is no sign of causation. …and, NO, sea level rise is figured as three DIFFERENT things, added together One, land-locked ice melting … that’s figured as ‘mass’ Two, oceanic temperature rising …that is the ‘steric’ component Three, Post-Glacial-Rebound (PGR) or, GIA (Glacial Iso-static Adjustment) The GIA (PGR) is added in, even though it is just a guess, and, it does not raise sea levels at all. It is about as big as the other two, and has a 50% uncertainty… Read more »
He’s saying that scientific evidence is irrelevant when a position has become part of an all-encompassing worldview with religious devotion. It clouds every observation and influences decision, and all the contrary evidence in the world could not discourage the faithful.
Hmmm..”irrelevant” may be ok to say, but is there NOTHING going on for which we should be concerned? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iEj76iX-xE
There is no legitimate climate science available because all of it has been done in service to power.
Ask:
Was it funded by government grants?
Will the results be used to influence policy decisions?
If so, the result is not science, but political decision making in the form of science.
So what about the Koch-funded, open source, climate skeptic-driven science I cited earlier that showed the same conclusions?
Or Demo D’s statement that even within industries threatened by the results, they generally accept the legitimacy of the science?
So what about Richard Mueller? He seems more like a global warming “Unitarian” as opposed to a global warming “Grand Inquisitor”.
Incidentally, I do gather that the globe has gotten warmer since the last ice age. (10 to 20,000 years ago?) I am less certain why it has gotten warmer since then, or why it got cold enough to cause an ice age in the first place. I do like the “meteor causing Iceland” theory!????❄️????????
In any case this discussion would benefit greatly from more input by Homer Simpson!????
I guess we’ll have to make do with……….????
What about it?
I lost my faith in global warming the first time I saw multiple decimal places assigned to the temperature of the ocean, as if it were one discrete thing, static, controlled, which could be measured in a repeatable way and independently verified. Any engineer whose work involves temperature measurements of large objects knows this whole thing is bogus. It is a mass of extrapolations based on interpolations, tree rings as proxies for known weather, data all massaged and then kept secret, fed into computer models that couldn’t predict global weather for next July, let alone the next century. And to… Read more »
My favorite part is that they only really measure the surface of the ocean, the part most susceptible to fast changes.
I remember going to a JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) open house and asking the scientist who works on the ocean temperature measuring satellites about this seemingly big issue with claiming ocean temps as a whole when you’re really only talking about the first couple feet of ocean, and they didn’t even have an answer.
I’ve had just enough infrared school to be in danger of embarrassing myself, but here’s another question. The nature of IR is that it sees emissions only from the last atom on the surface. So, does that have a tendency to detect IR from only the highest energy atoms at the most superficial layer? If so, does that tend to make the apparent temperature a mite higher than it would be otherwise? And from military training in IR, the poor transmissivity of a wet atmosphere is a really big deal. Since IR satellites are always looking through the wettest possible… Read more »
When Richard Mueller, a prominent climate change skeptic, did a Koch Brothers-funded study to test his notions that the assumptions of Climate Change promoters were wrong, he found that he was wrong, and changed his position. He had attempted to determine whether the supposed warming could be explained by urban heating, by limited data selection, by poor station quality, by data manipulation from scientists or other forms of data adjustment…and found in every case that it couldn’t. The warming was real. I’ll repeat – Mueller went from being a Climate Change skeptic to a scientist in agreement with Climate Change… Read more »
“Mueller went from being a Climate Change skeptic to a scientist in agreement with Climate Change based on his own Koch Brothers-funded study.”
Was he not a scientist before?
“A scientist before?”
Of course not! He was either “Alt. Right”, “Russian” or “deplorable”!
There is 97% MSM consensus on this!????
Ah, the power of word choice.
I spent some time watching this Richard Muller cat on youtube. He is less sensational with his claims about global warming, which is refreshing. He basically says the world is warming, and that warming correlates with humans producing more CO2. Let’s suppose that Mr. Muller is correct. This falls short of a complete policy analysis in two ways. First, it only addresses the first two points Wilson makes above. After Mr. Muller concludes humans are warming the Earth he automatically jumps to we should stop it and how (coincidentally stopping it will make people a lot of money). He gives… Read more »
Is Jonathan’s anecdote about Mueller’s conversion supposed to be conclusive? How about Hajo Smit, a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee, who converted to become a skeptic? Or how about Dr Chris de Freitas? Do they cancel each other out? Is this how Jonathan thinks that climate science is done “the right way”, by exchanging anecdotes? What premise of Wilson’s does Jonathan think is affected by Mueller’s conversion?
Pastor Wilson claimed that any serious attempt to answer any of the relevant questions would be shouted down, implying that it hadn’t happened. I was pointing out, with that anecdote, that no, serious attempts to answer those questions had happened. I think that anecdote is one of many, many such attempts, but one that Pastor Wilson would be particularly hard-pressed to deny was serious. Since Pastor Wilson said that any serious attempt to answer any of the questions would be shouted down, then yes, only one example was necessary. I have quite a difficult time finding clear information about the… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Pastor Wilson claimed that any serious attempt to answer any of the relevant questions would be shouted down, implying that it hadn’t happened. I think Jonathan misunderstood Wilson’s point. Wilson is not saying that people who attempt to inquire into his four questions will be shouted down for merely inquiring. Nor was Wilson saying that people who convert from skepticism to belief in climate fundamentalism (like Mueller) will be shouted down — they will be embraced and adulated. Rather it is people who attempt to respond to Wilson’s four questions with answers contrary to climate fundamentalism that will… Read more »
You’re making a magical reading of Pastor Wilson’s intentions, Katecho. These were his exact words: I certainly grant that something like a greenhouse effect could happen. But the fundamental questions are: 1. Is it in fact happening? 2. If it is, is man causing it? 3. Whether man is causing it or not, can man do anything to reverse it? 4. If it is happening, is it a bad thing? Should we want to reverse it? Any serious attempt to answer any of these questions will be shouted down by the climate fundamentalists. He is clearly saying not only that… Read more »
Why would Wilson suggest that anyone who investigates and answers his four questions, in line with the prevailing climate doom orthodoxy, would be shouted down by the climate fundamentalists? That doesn’t even make any sense.
I think Jonathan is overlooking the obvious context of Wilson’s statement in order to reach a conclusion completely unsupportable by that context. Why does Jonathan suppose that Wilson thinks that Mueller would be shouted down by climate fundamentalists for switching to their side? Magical reading indeed.
Is Jonathan somehow questioning that climate skeptics are routinely shouted down?
Because Pastor Wilson implies that someone who answers those questions seriously won’t get the answers that Pastor Wilson’s opponents like?
It’s like when he says, “It’s time for an adult conversation on race”, when people have been having such conversations for well over 100 years. Or when he says that we should look at gun stats, and then provides fake stats while ignoring real ones. He automatically assumes (and clearly implies) that people who come to different places than him on such questions must not be doing it right.
Jonathan wrote: Because Pastor Wilson implies that someone who answers those questions seriously won’t get the answers that Pastor Wilson’s opponents like? Wilson clearly wasn’t saying that serious investigators would be shouted down for reaching the same conclusions as the climate establishment. The context makes it obvious that Wilson wasn’t talking about that group. That wouldn’t even make sense. So what is left for Jonathan to disagree with in Wilson’s statement? Researchers have been ostracized and even lost their jobs for taking Wilson’s questions seriously and reaching conclusions contrary to the climate fundamentalists. That’s been demonstrated repeatedly. It seems that… Read more »
Regarding adult conversations about race, Jonathan assumes that mere length of historic interaction on the subject entails that people have necessarily come to a firm grasp of the proper root issues. No I did not say that, as often occurs in our discussions, you completely made that up. What I said was that I believe people have been having serious, meaningful discussions about race for a very long period of time. Adult conversations. Pastor Wilson has mocked any viewpoint that doesn’t agree with his own by repeatedly claiming that now is time for an “adult conversation”, which he assumes has… Read more »
I’ll ask a question of you and Pastor Wilson, and anyone else who questions the quality of the science to this point. Which option would make you happier, A or B? A) Trump directs the relevant agencies to study the science of the issue in detail. To try to study, conclusively, whether the Earth is warming, whether man is responsible, what can be done to reverse it, and if we should. The very questions that Pastor Wilson said were fundamental. With Donald Trump and various well-funded members of the oil industry in charge of all these departments, you would trust… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Now, which position, A or B, do you think the oil and gas companies are advocating for right now? It’s all well and good to point out the biases and conflict of interest coming from the direction of the oil and gas companies, but Jonathan is conveniently neglecting the rest of the story. According to a Forbes article, the “U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009”. Billions more have been spent since 2009, and tens of billions more have been spent on “climate change technology research”. Solyndra anyone? The climate racket… Read more »
Katecho, you’re talking about $30 billion spread out over 20 years as if it’s a big deal. The PROFITS alone from Big Oil in the last QUARTER nearly double that $30 billion number. In three months, Big Oil reported $51.5 billion in profits. Think about that for a second and then look at your numbers. Yes, the government spends money studying the climate. It is obvious that it would do that regardless of anything having to do with anthropomorphic global warming. How much of that number you listed has to do with weather stations, weather satellites, and other measurements that… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Katecho, you’re talking about $30 billion spread out over 20 years as if it’s a big deal. The PROFITS alone from Big Oil in the last QUARTER nearly double that $30 billion number. I’m not sure if red herrings and non sequiturs can actually get bigger than this one. The world’s economies run on fossil fuels, but they don’t run on climate doom research. The difference makes Jonathan’s attempted comparison silly on its face. However, I’m pleased to see Jonathan come clean that he doesn’t think $32 billion is a big deal when nothing conclusive resulted. I find… Read more »
It’s not a “red herring”. There is FAR more money to be made in supporting the oil industry than in supporting climate research. So if there’s a profit motive to believing one thing over the other, it’s much more likely to be found in the place where there’s a lot more money to be made. FWIW, the US Global Change Research Program was started as a presidential initiative under the George H.W. Bush administration, back before denying any scientific result that disagreed with the interests of corporate funders was in vogue. It is NOT all about climate change and you… Read more »
A is fine, but science questions don’t answer policy. They can at best inform it, and even then, they are best at saying this is a waste of time and not very good at saying this is good. Are peas the cause of obesity? If no then don’t ban them (for that reason). But if yes, the question of banning still hasn’t been resolved because it is a policy question. As to B, government shouldn’t be funding science at all; or perhaps basic research technology directly relevant to it duties as a government. Currently (here) climate change is added to… Read more »
Understanding if and how the climate changes is incredibly important to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the State Department, among others. As far as science topics goes, it would seem to be one that is rather obviously important to national interests. It was Republican George H.W. Bush who created the national agency which studies man-caused changes to the globe a 13-agency collaboration across almost the entire federal government, due to its wide interest to many different parties. If governments didn’t fund large-scale science… Read more »
My position is that government should do government. So that would be defense above. Possible FEMA (though your FEMA is a mess and should be defunded and replaced).
But climate change is neither technology, nor direct. So no, I wouldn’t have government fund it. Nor most of science. I do note that you find the most useful technology (satellite) and compare it to something tenuous and expensive. But yes, much of scientific funding could be private (that nee not imply a profit motive at all).
But I would like to challenge a lot of your other assumptions. There is no doubt that money is a powerful motive. But so is ideology. And the money motive matters to the person. So my investments which will include some energy make perhaps 4% currently. This is not much of a motivation for me nor millions of shareholders which is the case for energy because it is so big. My job is far more of a motivation for my income so I need to be careful I don’t make my decisions to my myself indispensable and secure my income.… Read more »
That would be true if their jobs and funding in general didn’t exist without global warming research. Yet that research money is relatively new, and often comes from sources that would be funding something one way or the other regardless of whether they were funding this or not. Not to mention that despite scientists constantly being accused of being desperate for these funds and the jobs in question, they don’t exactly have very high unemployment rates. I agree that scientists really want to grab funding grants and chase them hard. But usually in order to fund the work they really… Read more »
Not completely fabricating (though there is much of that going on in several fields that publish or perish). But it is a motivating factor. Even if you are agnostic on the issue, if you add a climate change aspect to your non-climate research (as per the grant application) that means adding some story based on some other paper. Over time you come to believe what your field is saying and what you are writing (copying). And while you may be a little more aware of the subtleties of your own narrow field, you believe the summarised versions you read in… Read more »
And thirdly, you wrote a list of things you objected to above. Out of control overconsumption. Agrobusiness. Urbanization. Military-industrial complex. Deforestation and desertification. Reducing pollution. Reducing funding of oil-states and terrorist hotbeds. Reducing our need to consider our oil sources as a factor in where and when we decide to go to war, Increasing the time and attention we spend focused on our local community Now I happen to disagree that the last is actually a problem. And my concern with Agrobusiness and Urbanisation are very different to your concerns, but overall it is a good list. The concern I… Read more »
Plenty of counter examples (people that went from being Climate Change believers to skeptics) out there. Any reason why your example should carry more weight than the counter examples?
Because he did a specific study that proved his own specific assumptions wrong, the exact kinda of study Pastor Wilson appeared to be saying didn’t exist?
We already went over this once. I wasn’t doing an Appeal to Authority, “Since this guy switched it must be true.” I was pointing out that a very serious study had been done, by the kind of person and with the kind of funding that Pastor Wilson would admit were unbiased. The focus was on the work being done, not on random people making opposing claims.
Can’t we just go back to nuclear winter? I really miss those good ole days
As others have mentioned, the fact that people abuse a truth for their own political ends doesn’t make it not true. If someone is statist, then anything can be used as evidence for more statism. That doesn’t mean the facts they are pointing to are necessarily made up, just that their conclusions are wrong. Doug’s four questions in the comments are good ones, albeit in the wrong order: “1. Is it in fact happening? 2. If it is, is man causing it? 3. Whether man is causing it or not, can man do anything to reverse it? 4. If it… Read more »
gerv wrote: At the moment, it seems more likely that on balance, poorer countries will lose and richer countries will win (or be able to adapt better). I appreciate the thoughtful response and concern for poorer countries, but it would be nice to see more detail about how these answers were arrived at. I am curious why gerv thinks that poorer countries will be losers, specifically in relation to a warming trend in climate. I understand the principle of the tragedy of the commons, but perhaps it is worth considering that a sudden spike in climate conscience/guilt by wealthy governments… Read more »
Fair questions. Perhaps these are parts of the science which could be disputed, but my understanding is that the changes caused will tend to lead (at least in the next few decades) to more extremes of weather; more hurricanes (due to warmer oceans), some cold places getting colder (which is why when Doug says ‘I shovelled a foot of global warming off my porch this morning, ho ho ho’, it’s not a particularly compelling anecdote), some hot places getting hotter, desert expansion, and so on. The poorest countries are, of course, less capable of adapting to _any_ change because they… Read more »
gerv wrote: Perhaps these are parts of the science which could be disputed, but my understanding is that the changes caused will tend to lead (at least in the next few decades) to more extremes of weather; more hurricanes (due to warmer oceans), some cold places getting colder … I think one thing we have learned from the climate hysteria is that anything can be disputed. However, this is an interesting article from 2005: https://ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea213/readings/discuss_1_Oki_Huntington/Huntington_2006_JHydrol_Evidence_intensification_Hydrologic_cycle.pdf Table 1 is interesting, and the conclusion of the abstract states: In contrast to these trends, the empirical evidence to date does not consistently support… Read more »
An easy answer is that there are far more poor countries which are close to the equator.
Plus, the poorer you are, the closer you live to the survival margin and the fewer resources you have to adapt. Also, you tend to be much more dependent on your natural environment.
Ah, if only we could all be eskimos! Eating polar bears and baby seals.
????
Far away from the equalizing influence of that equator.????????????
On the other hand, Rastafarians don’t seem too troubled by their proximity to The equator. I wonder if a Dreadlocked Eskimo is the ideal human being?
????????????
Eskimos don’t eat polar bears though.
What!!!!?
I thought polar bear paired nicely with baby seal?
Or am I thinking of Chardonnay?
Turns out I was wrong, they do eat polar bear. It’s just not a primary staple.
That works the other way round, too.
They scrupulously avoid the liver, though, because it is so high in vitamin A that it is highly toxic even in small amounts.
Whatever the facts are, we need a solution to negative externalities. Rothbard’s Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution is an excellent primer on the issues involved. For example, suppose a man dies of heart disease. He lived in an area with high concentration of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). There is a link between PM2.5 levels and heart disease. Rothbard’s thesis is that the law is a set of prohibitions against the invasion of private property rights. Aggression may take the form of pollution of someone else’s air or injury against his person. In this case,… Read more »
Anyone that has a high level of confidence in “the consensus of science” should read two books. You will stop being so confident after you read these I promise. 1) Anti Fragile by Nassim Nicolas Taleb 2) How to be a better Atheist by Mitch Stokes Science has a very very long track record of overconfidence in a theory being followed by a “shocking” upheaval of that theory followed by a new theory to replace it and an immediate new (but equally as strong) over confidence in the new theory. It happens over and over again. Anyone that is very… Read more »
You cite exactly nothing in this. You provide no evidence, no links to evidence, nothing in the same galaxy as evidence. If you’re going to rebut an argument you are obligated to state exactly what proposition you’re responding to and then actually respond to it. This is nothing but an ignorant whine and you’re tribe of yapping ignorant lemmings will repeat this nonsense forever, or at least until they face extinction from the facts you told them to ignore.
Or to put it more succinctly: “BLASPHEMY!!!”
Citation please? ????
Your*
Annoying people who find the truth annoying is part of the fun. Thanks for playing.
I think to view this as religious zeal is to miss the point a little; yes, zeal is there, but not for the sacred principles of climatology. It’s for power. Scientism and climatism have been avenues to power (because the legitimacy of government policy has rested on these scientistic rituals) but will be discarded as soon as they stop being useful. What we’re seeing now is a power struggle between the various organs of the system; Trump is making it clear that power via climatism can no longer be assumed but must be negotiated for. Digging out the root of… Read more »
For those folks who think that mankind is seriously and adversely affecting the climate, let me ask you. . . To what lengths are you willing to go to get other countries (or our own citizens) to comply with your ideas of being green? Do you see the potential for harm in forced compliance? In giving power to governments to force compliance? Are you willing to counter the negative effects on American workers/companies as we comply but other nations do not? Do you think the narrative is possibly being pushed along by those who want to take power? Do you… Read more »
If you want proof that global warming is natural and is supposed to happen, 200 years ago, Britain used to have a wine industry. It is too cold now to grow grapes. Britain used to be warmer
Can the wife of a research and teaching meteorologist at a major university put in a word here? When my husband is asked the inevitable question about global warming, this is what he says: Yes, it would appear that global warming is a reality. Climate change is not something new. It is entirely a natural occurrence and happens all the time through every age. Humans MIGHT have contributed something to it, but the nasty truth is that there are so many variables (including many we are not even aware of yet) in what drives weather and climate that right now… Read more »
There is good reason to believe that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures. This is what the so called “97%” of scientists believe.
There is no good reason to believe that this will lead to an apocalyptic scenario.
The problem is that people often misconstrue those two things as if they’re the same claim, when they most definitely are not.
They are NoT missing the alter or the priest. The alter is planned parenthood. The sacrifice is the unborn, for Man is the enemy of Mother Earth and the priestesses are the women who run the abortion mills
To boil the whole “problem” down to its basics: far too much emphasis on the significance of man, and far too little emphasis on the sovereignty of God Almighty.
“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own
will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet…nor is the liberty or contingency of second
causes taken away, but rather established.” WCF
I think you imply a tension that doesn’t exist.
Regardless of the debate on the science, which I think eventually ends up being a distraction on both sides even though I have a strong position, it’s what direction the response takes that really matters. On the “follow the science” side, this is where the true scientism comes in. Determining what effect man has on the atmosphere is just a matter of science. When people start to talk about spending massive amounts of money to create a technical solution to eliminate global warming, they are almost certainly practicing a kneejerk reaction, an assumption that more technology will fix a problem… Read more »
Jonathan, you certainly have a dire list to consider! I have one question for you: is there any time in history (with all those old problems) that you would rather live?
I do believe you are confusing blessings with problems. Pollution (etc) is the result of having a life of less human drudgery and misery. When pollution (etc) makes our lives more miserable, we will pay to clean it up.
God is God in any age, so I would be happy with any time in which I could know Christ. How are you evaluating? Do you buy the propaganda that we are continuously creating progress and the greatest of all ages because of our fantastic material wealth and the wonderful dominance of the wealthy, which is the answer to everything good in life, regardless of, you know, whether people are actually content or happy or God-fearing? You’re also confusing who gets to decide when problems are solved. We only pay to make things change when the wealthy who influence the… Read more »
1) Agreed, but it’s OK to have a preference. 2) I don’t believe the prop, but I do believe we are seeing great progress from any prospective you could choose. 3) Who decides? God first, then the combined choices of the masses of people. Governments and groups of wealthy people do have some influence, but the consumer (buyer) always determines the price. The wealthy use advertising to persuade the masses, but the masses do choose to follow. 4) Mankind doesn’t determine the future – his own or the Earth’s. The only affect mankind has on the world is from the… Read more »
Jonathan,
Read Efigee’s comment below, posted at the same time as mine!
Was the minor who was with RC Sproul Jr when he was arrested for drunk driving the other day one of his children, or was it someone not related to him?
It’s certainly not clear from the news articles:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/r-c-sproul-jr-resigned-from-ligonier-ministries-after-felonious-dui-arrest-with-minor-in-vehicle-172192/
Edit:
Never mind. I somehow missed this part:
Seems it was his own child.
While that’s big news in one tiny circle of Christendom, just curious why you commented in this thread? Do you suspect climate change triggered RC Jr’s drinking spree?
While that’s big news in one tiny circle of Christendom, just curious why you commented in this thread? It appeared to be the most active thread, and I thought someone on here might be able to answer the question. I thought it could’ve been that he’d been caught driving drunk with jailbait, though I figured it was unlikely. But I’m not sure which is worse – driving jailbait around when you can barely stand up, or endangering your own kid by driving them around when you’re essentially falling-down drunk. Also, that “one tiny circle of Christendom” is far from tiny… Read more »
Think I was exaggerating about RC Sproul, Jr, when I said he was weaving all over the road? It’s even worse than that. He blew a .175, not a .15. He had not one, but two of his kids in the car. He drove on I-469, a busy freeway, for 2 miles at 30 MPH, with a flat tire, instead of pulling over and changing the tire or calling for help. Doing 30 on a freeway is incredibly dangerous, and endangers not only the people in your car, but many others. When he got off the freeway, he crossed the… Read more »
I don’t pray, but if you do, you should pray for RCjr. He’s probably not in a very good way right now. His dad’s been bailing him out of his moral jams for well over a decade now, hiring him for the Bible College and the ministry when it was manifestly obvious that he was unqualified, in repeated displays of rank nepotism that would make President Trump blush. In fact, it was just this past summer that Daddy hired him back after “suspending” him for a year when the Ashley Madison hack revealed that he’d given his email address to… Read more »
This guy says that RC Sproul Jr was paid $350,000 during his year long “suspension.”
http://rc-sproul-jr.blogspot.com/
So his “punishment” for having an account at Ashley Madison was being paid $30,000 a month for 12 months by Ligonier “Ministries” and Reformation “Bible” College.
Being Daddy’s little boy sure does pay well.
Junior’s not the only Sproul who needs to resign in disgrace.
Doug, other preachers, and half the commenters on here are always talking about how God’s not going to answer our prayers to heal America until Christians repent. But they never say exactly what it is we need to repent of. That part’s always extremely vague, beyond abortion and gay marriage, which most Christians don’t agree with or practice anyway. Well, here’s one good place to start. Repent of supporting and sending money to “ministries” like Ligonier where the disgraced and defrocked son of the founder can get paid $279,000 in 2014 even though he probably couldn’t have gotten a job… Read more »
Just curious…. why don’t you pray?
That was bad phrasing. I meant that I don’t pray much, or set aside a time every day where I kneel and pray. But I do pray some. But not much.
I needed prayer yesterday. I discovered what happens when you accidentally tip a full bottle of diet coke over your laptop. I am using my daughter’s until I get to the store for a new one!
I understand that it is my Christian duty to pray for him. But I can sure pray more happily for the thousands of people who are suffering want, misery, pain and anxiety through no fault of their own.
You know, a better question might be why, even though RC Sproul Jr got fired for drunk driving a week ago, Doug hasn’t had a word to say about it. Granted, a week ago we didn’t know the firing was because of a drunk driving arrest, but given the history, especially their shared history, Doug should’ve said something about Junior getting fired by Daddy. Junior was defrocked by his own denomination 10 years ago. That means he was declared unfit for the ministry and stripped of his authority. Then Doug, and Doug’s denomination, the CREC, almost immediately rejected the findings… Read more »
The real reason for the defrocking had to do with R.C’s promotion of paedo-communion, which was staunchly denied by the RPCGA. Why the RPCGA ever allowed R.C. and the congregation to join the denomination is a mystery but probably had more to do with the credibility that R.C. was perceived as bringing to the fledgling micro denomination. Alcohol was never an issue. The real shame belongs to the presbytery of the RPCGA for the power they hoped to gain by bringing R.C. in. But he wouldn’t keep quiet about his convictions about paedo-communion and they used an issue of church… Read more »
The real reason for the defrocking had to do with R.C’s promotion of paedo-communion, which was staunchly denied by the RPCGA. Actually, there were a whole bunch of issues. http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/02/post_53.php http://hushmoney.org/R.C._Sproul_Jr._disclaimer.htm Alcohol was never an issue. Well, if his heavy drinking wasn’t an issue, in hindsight it certainly looks like it should’ve been. The real shame belongs to the presbytery of the RPCGA for the power they hoped to gain by bringing R.C. in. No, “the real shame” doesn’t belong to the RPCGA. If that were so, that would mean there’s no actual shame in swearing false oaths, lying and… Read more »
“In August 2014, in a moment of weakness, pain, and from an unhealthy curiosity, I visited Ashley Madison. My goal was not to gather research for critical commentary, but to fan the flames of my imagination.” I wish he had tried that line of confession on an old-style Catholic priest instead of a gullible public. “Leave the weakness and pain out of it, and try again. Unhealthy curiosity is a kinder, gentler name for sinful lust. Fan the flames of your imagination means, in this context, wondering if you could get away with having risk-free sex with a woman who… Read more »
And, making matters worse, a few months before his “confession”, he had written that he had only just recently heard of this terrible site for adultery called Ashley Madison, when in fact, he’d created an account there a year before.
His whole thing about visiting rather registering was disingenuous. From what I read, you can’t get past the opening screens without registering. He was a widower. Why didn’t he try Christian Mingles?
Yes; even his “confession” was a lie. I’m assuming he was stoned out of his mind when he signed up on the site. But he couldn’t be honest about that, either, in his “confession”, because then he would’ve had to admit to drunkenness along with trying to meet a married woman for sex. And, to be honest, except for the fact that he was on a site advertising sex with a married woman, I kinda feel bad for the guy. His wife had died of cancer a few years back, he’s raising a bunch of kids by himself and probably… Read more »
“I’m assuming he was stoned out of his mind when he signed up on the site.” While assumptions can be useful, you make them the basis of your entire argument, and I believe that leaves you wide open to fallacy. Were you there? Do you know for a fact that he was “stoned”, which you then use to justify your belief that he was a chronic drunk?
I was trying to be charitable. But you may be right. It might be that he didn’t create an account at a site where you go to meet married women for sex because he was inebriated and not thinking clearly. Maybe he did so completely sober. Which, IMO, is far worse. Do you know for a fact that he was “stoned”, which you then use to justify your belief that he was a chronic drunk? This is both lame and irrational. I don’t base my belief that he’s a chronic drunk on my theory about what happened that night. On… Read more »
Dear 40, thanks for responding. I’m sorry you see me as guilty of moral relativism and even antinomianism. I also abhor those qualities. The church of which R.C. was a pastor had a very high standard of membership. They believed and still do believe that membership is covenantal and is a matter of taking vows. The family that you have joined in defending of being treated in a tyrannical manner came to the church with their eyes wide open. In fact they attended for well over six months before joining the church. It may have been a year. They knew… Read more »
Sorry 40, I thought it was you and not Ich.
You were right. We’re the same person. I like to change my screen name every year. This is my new one for 2017. 40 Acres and a Kardashian was my 2016 name. In 2015, I was Caitlyn Wayne Gacy, and in 2014 I was OJ Cosby. In 2013 I was Bull Connor Was a Heterosexual. In 2012 I was Estes Kefauver. In 2011, I was J. Frank Norris. Back in 2010, when I first started commenting here, I used my real name, Steve “Stephen” Stevenson.
At any rate, Merry Christmas (from all of us)!
But for you to say that on the outside he would be hard pressed to earn even a $30K salary is just mean spirited. Or was that just hyberole?
It was neither.
I said he probably couldn’t have gotten a job paying 30k at a legitimate ministry.
Legit ministries tend not to hire ministers who have been in and out of three denominations in the space of a year or two (especially if they were defrocked by the first one), and when they weren’t in the pastorate, made most of their money working in their dad’s “non-profit ministry.”