Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

Tags: al, belief, blind, climate, global, gore, warming

Views: 1743

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Is you point that we can't trust any model because it doesn't accurately reflect all the variables?

No, one's confidence in the model depends upon two things. First, of course, is the design of the model itself. However, then you also need good data.

The models used to predict weather by your local TV station have become very good over the years because they get constant feedback in addition to their historical data. It's not quite the same with climate modeling because of the huge expanses of time they attempt to cover.

If you think they got it wrong, point out where.

They got it wrong. (See below for details.) How shocking for a British tabloid specializing in celebrity gossip. They get it wrong a lot. This is why the Daily Mail won the 2013 Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year Award from Media Matters.

----------------------

David Rose Fudged Numbers To Claim Climate Scientists "Confess[ed]" To Lower Warming. The Mail on Sunday published an article on September 14 originally titled "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we thought." In the article, reporter David Rose claimed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set to admit that the world is warming more slowly than previously thought. A climate scientist explained to the UK watchdog group Carbon Brief why Rose's numbers were "completely incorrect" and that the true revision was minor -- from 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade to 0.12 degrees Celsius:

The Mail on Sunday says:

"Back [in 2007], [the IPCC] said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius every decade ... But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12 Celsius per decade - a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction"

Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, tells us this statement is quite simply wrong. He says Rose has mixed up the numbers in the last IPCC report.

"The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect."

In 2007, the IPCC said the rate of warming since 1951 had been not 0.2 but 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. If the new report says 0.12 degrees Celsius, as the Mail on Sunday suggests, this is a very minor revision of 0.01 degrees.

[...]

So where does the 0.2 degree per decade figure come from? Richard Allan tells us it does appear in the last IPCC report, but refers to a 15-year period in the run up to the report's release, not the warming per decade since 1951. He says:

"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".

So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]." [Mail on Sunday, 9/14/13] [Carbon Brief, 9/16/13]
(Source)

I was giving the blog a lot of thought while I took a break to watch the Pirates and Blue Jays game tonight. I found a sports reference might be useful in communicating my position.

In the top of the fourth inning there was a play at first base in which the ball and Josh Tole arrived at first base at almost the exact same moment. The call was that Tole was safe, and since I had always been told that 'If it's too close to call, the runner is safe.' I saw the instant replay, and he appeared out. Lastly the deployment of the new MLB Instant Replay rule did not find enough video evidence to overturn the initial ruling, so the ruling stood - safe at first.

Predictably, controversy ensued.

Pirates fans will no doubt go over the video many times and get as many still shots as they can. Blue Jay fans will point to the closeness of the play, the good intentions and talent of the first base umpire, and point to the rule which clearly states that the video must overturn the ruling on the field without a doubt. Some Pirates fans will allege that the umpire may be on the take. Some will say that the umpire was trying to make up for a previous questionable call that went in favor of the Pirates, or that ump may decide that some future call that may be just as questionable should go in favor of the Pirates. The point is that human behavior can be perfectly predictable.

For many of us, the man made climate crisis can only be seen as a very close call, and since the courses of action seem dramatic if not costly, we are reluctant to get behind it.

How far does Pirates manager Clint Hurdle go to argue what seems plain to him - the ball arrived first, so the runner it out. People are counting on him, and the truth appears to be on his side.

I may well change my mind get behind the climate crisis movement, but until then it just seems to me too close to fault others, become upset or throw money at it. 

Link to Pirates and Blue Jays game summary: http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article/tor/clint-hurdle-john-...

 Thanks for all the great posts on this thread!!

The IPCC and prominent environmentalists continue to promote the idea that the main cause of climate change is human activities and that their modeling of climate makes it "settled science." It has become almost a knee-jerk reaction to think that being skeptical is a kind of redneck response, and the fact that most of the skeptics one sees in the news are Republicans who almost automatically reject anything that may adversely affect business interests. However, that isn't true at all. There are many well-educated, qualified, and sometimes world renowned scientists who reject the IPCC's modeling in whole in part, or in terms of it's recommendations. I found the following group of scientist-skeptics on just one page in Wikipedia. So, let's put to bed the idea that only a complete idiot can doubt the current dogma on climate change.

Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

It's not the modeling that makes it settled science, it's the data that we have analyzed from natural sources. No other explanation fits the data except a rise in CO2 concentrations. Those concentrations are a man-made source not a natural one. The climate models that have been devised are only good as guidelines for extrapolating future information. The data that "settles the science" as the source of our warming climate comes from hundreds if not thousands of experiments and analyses. Every time the skeptics have proposed a theory of some other natural cause for warming it has been shown to have little or no effect. The only conclusion that stands is that the rise in CO2 emissions from human sources has resulted in the rise of global mean temperature from roughly 1850 to the present.

The fact that some very smart people still have doubts doesn't mean that they have come up with a better explanation or that they have adequately refuted or found serious error in the current data.

There are no very smart people who still have doubts.  There are simply people with credentials who hope to make a buck shilling for the fossil fuel industry.

The IPCC and prominent environmentalists continue to promote the idea that the main cause of climate change is human activities and that their modeling of climate makes it "settled science."

This is a lie. Find an IPCC report which claims the main cause of climate change is human activities and that their models-- as opposed to overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence-- makes it "settled science". Post it here.

It has become almost a knee-jerk reaction to think that being skeptical is a kind of redneck response, and the fact that most of the skeptics one sees in the news are Republicans who almost automatically reject anything that may adversely affect business interests.

I think that most of the "skeptics"-- that's pronounced "climate change deniers"-- are paid shills for the petroleum industry because they are.

However, that isn't true at all. There are many well-educated, qualified, and sometimes world renowned scientists who reject the IPCC's modeling in whole in part, or in terms of it's recommendations. I found the following group of scientist-skeptics on just one page in Wikipedia.

Your linked Wikipedia page lists eight scientific studies showing just 1 to 6 percent of the world's climate and earth scientists reject the IPCC conclusion that global warming is caused by humans.

You have a rather peculiar-- that's pronounced "dishonest"-- notion of what constitutes "many" scientists versus "a tiny fraction" of scientists. Many on your list aren't even climatologists.

So, let's put to bed the idea that only a complete idiot can doubt the current dogma on climate change.

The IPCC report is not dogma. It's science: Nobel-prize winning science.

I chose four names from your list of climate change deniers, scientists from the four most prestigious institutions: Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Duke. Predictably, three are funded by or working for organizations that are funded by the petroleum industry... 

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at MIT, member of the NAS
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

...and the fourth, Duke University physicist Dr. Nicola Scafetta, raised eyebrows when he claimed to have evidence that the sun (not carbon dioxide) is causing global warming, then refused to show his work after climatologists pointed out the errors in his research.

I especially enjoyed seeing that Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Exxon-funded and Koch-Funded Cato Institute, made your list, apparently with no sense of irony.

This came out Wednesday on AP:

In a startling reversal, Gore said that global cooling is the greatest threat mankind faces. “New data suggest earth is actually heading into a Little Ice Age caused, naturally, by human activity, mostly American. Nuclear weapons testing in the latter half of the 20th century by the United States shifted the planet on its axis, exposing less of the surface to the sun’s rays.”

So, not only are ALL of those scientists wrong about temperature, we must also dismiss their claim about cause.

And Al Gore keeps getting richer...

Global warming deniers are the intellectual equivalent of creationists.  If you have any doubts, it can only be because you have not made an honest effort to find and understand the research.  There is a mountain of data out there.  There is no excuse for being ignorant of it nor for misunderstanding it.

There are the flat-Earth types who deny that warming is going on. These are generally business people or politicians or right-wing nut jobs. We need to distinguish between the and the many scientists and experts who don't buy into the entire IPCC package: methods and recommendations. 

Periodic visits to sites like those below make you realize that there may be a majority view but that there really is no consensus among the scientists.

http://www.wuwt.com

http://www.judithcurry.com

RSS

Forum

What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!

Started by Unseen in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 10 minutes ago. 24 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 18 minutes ago. 13 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 53 Replies

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Virgil 10 hours ago. 65 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service