Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

The thing with "predictive science" is that we really can't do a controlled experiment. I can research the properties of a particular element, including how it will react with other elements. We're trying to make an educated guess about what will happen if Co2 levels in the atmosphere rise, but we really don't know for sure. We don't have all the details about what caused previous warming and cooling cycles.

I agree with a lot of this. But I think we have quite a bit of data on the last 50 years, and a reasonable amount on the last 100 or so. Many of the causes people have proposed have clear fingerprints that can tell us how much they account for.

I think we have much less data on the exact conditions before we could directly measure them. We can guess. But a lot of what we say about the distant past is speculative in the same way as predictions about the future. The time period we've been able to best measure is the recent past.

But we can track these predictions over time. I've been seeing these debates since 1990 or so, and back then I wasn't sure that I believed scientists who predicted global warming. Here's what has been happening as we debated these things in political circles for the last 25 years:



So if I had to rely on the last 25 years to determine who was right back in 1990, I would go with the people who predicted global warming.

And if I'm not sure, I would go with the people who say that you should clean up after yourself instead of polluting the atmosphere without worrying about the consequences.

[Bootstrap]

If you want to post pages of research. feel free. I want to just share things that I find problematic to those who plan to use this to profit from taxing more.

Understanding scientific questions really does require absorbing pages of research. But if I take the time to do that, people rarely respond in any detail to what I said. So it can be an infinite time swamp, but it's also ignoring the real issue.

As your post indicates, this is a political hot button issue that is used a lot in identity politics. And identity politics is funded largely by lobbyists who have a vested interest. 90 companies are responsible for 2/3 of global warming, and they are very influential in politics. Those companies have been paying lobbyists and marketing organizations to discredit or defund research that is showing results they don't like. It's no coincidence that they are using some of the same lobbyists that the tobacco industry used when they were trying to discredit research showing a connection between lung cancer and smoking.

Suppose mainstream science is right on this. Don't you think the taxpayers wind up paying a lot more because we didn't ask the 90 biggest polluters to clean up after themselves?

[ken_sylvania]

[
And if I'm not sure, I would go with the people who say that you should clean up after yourself instead of polluting the atmosphere without worrying about the consequences.

And I am 100% in agreement on this point.

[MaxPC]

Many of these studies are funded by producers of feed additives, but many are also done by public universities. The federal government spends a boatload of money on ag programs and research every year. And lest I come across as discounting the value of these research programs, let me be clear that they have done a lot of good over the years.

Having been in that research setting I can agree, that there are programs that have benefitted in various disciplines from Fed dollars and grants. I can also note that there is quite a bit of grant money funding research that will reaffirm a particular political or profit agenda. Greed and politics have always been involved in research; not all research but a goodly portion of it.

[temporal1]

From Page 9:

.. And we're going to have a very hard time preaching the Gospel to anyone who believes in mainstream science if we associate Christianity with rejecting the scientific consensus on global warming.

boot, sometimes i just hurt for you, and i pray for you. you must be in great pain. i am sorry.

[Bootstrap]

From Page

.. And we're going to have a very hard time preaching the Gospel to anyone who believes in mainstream science if we associate Christianity with rejecting the scientific consensus on global warming.

boot, sometimes i just hurt for you, and i pray for you. you must be in great pain. i am sorry.

It really does pain me to see Christianity distorted by its association with political hot button issues. It completely changes the topic. We stop putting the focus on what Jesus said and did, and start attacking people who disagree with political views on things like climate change.

Other than that, I think I'm doing pretty well. But I do care a lot about what the Gospel is and what it isn't. And I am very much pained by politicized Christianity.

Which is why I groaned when this thread started, if you go back to the first posts. Discussions on this topic are rarely open to more than one point of view. They are rarely interested in slow, careful examination of the scientific evidence. That's not what they are about.

[GaryK]

Which is why I groaned when this thread started, if you go back to the first posts. Discussions on this topic are rarely open to more than one point of view. They are rarely interested in slow, careful examination of the scientific evidence. That's not what they are about.

I really am confused. I'm wondering why this thread made you groan? Are you obligated to respond to threads that make you groan? Why not just stick to the threads that discuss what you "say" you would like to see on MN? It's really pretty easy to do.

[Bootstrap]

Which is why I groaned when this thread started, if you go back to the first posts. Discussions on this topic are rarely open to more than one point of view. They are rarely interested in slow, careful examination of the scientific evidence. That's not what they are about.

I really am confused. I'm wondering why this thread made you groan? Are you obligated to respond to threads that make you groan? Why not just stick to the threads that discuss what you "say" you would like to see on MN? It's really pretty easy to do.

I think for the same reason Jesus pushed back at the Pharisees - if you asked anyone what real Judaism looked like, they would point to the Pharisees. These days, so many of the people I know think Christianity is mostly this toxic politicized mess.

We need to remember what Christianity is. And what it is not. If you want to grow a garden, you often have to keep pulling out the weeds. Christianity is not about taking sides on global warming.

[GaryK]

Which is why I groaned when this thread started, if you go back to the first posts. Discussions on this topic are rarely open to more than one point of view. They are rarely interested in slow, careful examination of the scientific evidence. That's not what they are about.

I really am confused. I'm wondering why this thread made you groan? Are you obligated to respond to threads that make you groan? Why not just stick to the threads that discuss what you "say" you would like to see on MN? It's really pretty easy to do.

I think for the same reason Jesus pushed back at the Pharisees - if you asked anyone what real Judaism looked like, they would point to the Pharisees. These days, so many of the people I know think Christianity is mostly this toxic politicized mess.

We need to remember what Christianity is. And what it is not. If you want to grow a garden, you often have to keep pulling out the weeds. Christianity is not about taking sides on global warming.

And pushing back on the other side of "this toxic politicized mess" is okay??? Is that what Christianity is?? Still confused.

[Robert]

I really am confused. I'm wondering why this thread made you groan? Are you obligated to respond to threads that make you groan? Why not just stick to the threads that discuss what you "say" you would like to see on MN? It's really pretty easy to do.

Because I suck him into this. I know he can not go without responding. I use my guerrilla tactics and they work well.

Kind of like the paid protesters the Democratic party is paying right now, except I don't get paid. Hmmm. I must do it because I really believe half of the research is biased and much of the raw data is being distorted. I wonder why I would think that about those pure hearted Amish like scientists and politicians? Must just be my jaded perspective.