Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by PeterG »

Anyway. I just think it contributes to the fruitlessness of climate change talk when those who engage in it treat politicization as if it were not a significant problem among those with whom they share conclusions on the issue.

Carry on.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
I don't really believe that you believe this.

Here is my issue. I have no doubts that oil and other big money is in with some of those who refute human caused climate change. I don't think ALL are, but I am sure some are.

You will not accept that the IPCC is politicized and doing the same. You keep holding them up as this light on the hill. The only light I see from them is a red light(red light district).

Sorry, but I do not see them with the glowing adoration as you see them. They have been caught 2, not 1 but 2!, times cooking the books and playing with numbers to promote their agenda.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by appleman2006 »

Peter I think down in the US politics is involved in both sides of the debate. Not so much here in Canada or in many other parts of the world where it is political suicide to take any other position then man caused climate change. There is very little for anyone up here to gain from taking such a stance.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
I don't really believe that you believe this.
I do, but I don't think the mainstream scientific community is one of the political sides. Al Gore and Greenpeace and their disciples are one of the sides. The Heartland Institute and their disciples are one of the sides.

If we dismiss the IPCC, scientific associations, scientific journals, what is taught in universities, etc., then you essentially give up on any attempt to treat this as a scientific question that is being studied seriously by a scientific community. So far, I don't hear anyone suggesting a reasonable alternative to these mainstream scientific resources.

Of course, there are politics in any human institution, including scientific and academic institutions, and no human being is 100% rational and fair. That's why it's important to have a transparent review process, disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest, etc. But the most reliable information in science is the information that survives the debates among scientists - especially when the process ensures that multiple reasonable views can be expressed.
Robert wrote:You will not accept that the IPCC is politicized and doing the same. You keep holding them up as this light on the hill. The only light I see from them is a red light(red light district).
The IPCC does nothing more or less than a literature review of the entire field, which is conducted by scientists. I think there were some real issues in the process before 2010, and I think they have responded appropriately - instead of trying to force everyone into one consensus, they provide the range of reasonable opinion on each topic, taking the entire literature into account, and also giving the level of certainty we have for any given finding. The process has also become quite transparent.

One other advantage of the IPCC report: precisely because their reports are so carefully scrutinized by so many people, it's a really good starting point for any particular topic on this subject. Much better than plucking the latest headline of the Internet. If you start there, you can quickly find all relevant literature that existed at the time of the report, read the various findings, and see how some scientists weighed one against another. That's hard to do with most resources.

But you can also look at literature reviews in various scientific journals and other reliable scientific sources, of course. But if you dismiss mainstream science, everything becomes a matter of political opinion.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by MaxPC »

Robert wrote:

Here is my issue. I have no doubts that oil and other big money is in with some of those who refute human caused climate change. I don't think ALL are, but I am sure some are.

You will not accept that the IPCC is politicized and doing the same. You keep holding them up as this light on the hill. The only light I see from them is a red light(red light district).

Sorry, but I do not see them with the glowing adoration as you see them. They have been caught 2, not 1 but 2!, times cooking the books and playing with numbers to promote their agenda.
Robert, you're right about this. The authentic science community that believes in and practices academic freedom does not consider the IPCC as an authentic arm of true academic research. Among the legitimate scientific community of researchers the IPCC is viewed as a group of "scientists for sale to the highest bidder", in this case political government agencies. Only the public relations arm of the governments involved call the IPCC mainstream scientists - the reality is they are not. The PR though will continue to try to convince people it's legit until the cows come home - or they stop getting paid. :lol:
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

MaxPC wrote:Robert, you're right about this. The authentic science community that believes in and practices academic freedom does not consider the IPCC as an authentic arm of true academic research. Among the legitimate scientific community of researchers the IPCC is viewed as a group of "scientists for sale to the highest bidder", in this case political government agencies.
Where can I find this "authentic science community" you are telling me about, Max? Please be specific, because you are holding them up as precisely the kind of alternative I have been asking about. Pretty much every legitimate scientific association I can find that weighs in on this says the IPCC is doing solid work. Would you like a list of them?

I agree that we don't want to be listening to hired gun scientists. I don't think that's what the IPCC is. And certainly scientists have been offered cash by lobbyist groups to dispute the IPCC's findings.
MaxPC wrote:Only the public relations arm of the governments involved call the IPCC mainstream scientists - the reality is they are not.
I have no idea what your reality is based in. Could you please share? Because as far as I can tell, scientific associations, scientific journals, science departments at Universities, and most of the scientists I know call them mainstream scientists. Which scientific associations, journals, and departments are you drawing on?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote: If we dismiss the IPCC, scientific associations, scientific journals, what is taught in universities, etc., then you essentially give up on any attempt to treat this as a scientific question that is being studied seriously by a scientific community. So far, I don't hear anyone suggesting a reasonable alternative to these mainstream scientific resources.
Science muddled through and forward long before the IPCC came about. It would do the same without them. The truth might be found sooner. If millions were not being dumped into the field trying to prove that does exist, the real facts and truth might filter up a little sooner. Honest questions and data would be considered.

The IPCC DOES have an agenda. Climategate proves that. The same people are there, they are just manipulating things better. If they did not have an agenda. then Climategate would have never happened. No, I do not trust their process. Please find another source to support your position. They are a discredited, tainted source. Big money is behind them.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by ken_sylvania »

Robert J. Shiller, NYT in November, 2008
Mr. Greenspan’s comments may have left the impression that no one in the world could have predicted the crisis. Yet it is clear that well before home prices started falling in 2006, lots of people were worried about the housing boom and its potential for creating economic disaster. It’s just that the Fed did not take them very seriously.

For example, I clearly remember a taxi driver in Miami explaining to me years ago that the housing bubble there was getting crazy. With all the construction under way, which he pointed out as we drove along, he said that there would surely be a glut in the market and, eventually, a disaster.

But why weren’t the experts at the Fed saying such things? And why didn’t a consensus of economists at universities and other institutions warn that a crisis was on the way?

The field of social psychology provides a possible answer. In his classic 1972 book, “Groupthink,” Irving L. Janis, the Yale psychologist, explained how panels of experts could make colossal mistakes. People on these panels, he said, are forever worrying about their personal relevance and effectiveness, and feel that if they deviate too far from the consensus, they will not be given a serious role. They self-censor personal doubts about the emerging group consensus if they cannot express these doubts in a formal way that conforms with apparent assumptions held by the group.
I was connected with the Federal Reserve System as a member the economic advisory panel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1990 until 2004... .... In my position on the panel, I felt the need to use restraint. While I warned about the bubbles I believed were developing in the stock and housing markets, I did so very gently, and felt vulnerable expressing such quirky views. Deviating too far from consensus leaves one feeling potentially ostracized from the group, with the risk that one may be terminated.
0 x
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by PeterG »

ken_sylvania wrote:
In his classic 1972 book, “Groupthink,” Irving L. Janis, the Yale psychologist, explained how panels of experts could make colossal mistakes. People on these panels, he said, are forever worrying about their personal relevance and effectiveness, and feel that if they deviate too far from the consensus, they will not be given a serious role. They self-censor personal doubts about the emerging group consensus if they cannot express these doubts in a formal way that conforms with apparent assumptions held by the group.
Yes, this clearly applies to people who do not agree with me.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:If we dismiss the IPCC, scientific associations, scientific journals, what is taught in universities, etc., then you essentially give up on any attempt to treat this as a scientific question that is being studied seriously by a scientific community. So far, I don't hear anyone suggesting a reasonable alternative to these mainstream scientific resources.
Science muddled through and forward long before the IPCC came about. It would do the same without them.
Yes, it did and it does.

All the IPCC does is ask scientists to work together to summarize the results of what science says, using a fair and open process. It conducts no research of its own. It does not fund the research it summarizes. It does not publish or control the scientific journals that publish research. The entire budget of the IPCC is only about 6 million dollars a year, much smaller than many American thinktanks. And this budget is less than 10% of the amount of dark money put into funding denial by people or organizations who did not want people to know they were behind it.

Much of the research funding comes from individual governments. For instance, the United States spent $11.6 billion on "funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation" in 2014 according to the GAO, that completely dwarfs the $6 million budget of the IPCC. They were funding these things before the IPCC existed, and continue to fund them now.

And the American scientific associations - which existed long before the IPCC - think the IPCC is getting this right. Look at this link, it gives statements from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and U.S. Global Change Research Program all provide quotes in keeping with the IPCC.
Robert wrote:The truth might be found sooner. If millions were not being dumped into the field trying to prove that does exist, the real facts and truth might filter up a little sooner. Honest questions and data would be considered.
How much of the IPCC reports have you actually read?

To me, it looks like it looks at the known facts exhaustively, asking pretty much all the questions a group of hundreds of scientists ask when they work together to summarize what we know.

Are there specific sections that you would like to discuss where you believe they are not asking the right questions or ignoring important research? When I read a section in the latest report, I'm usually impressed that they have looked at many different kinds of evidence, taken disagreements into account, and summarized a variety of opinions, ranges of possible outcomes, etc. Is there a particular section where you would claim the report is not in keeping with mainstream science at the time the report is written, or that it fails to adequately discuss important views?
Robert wrote:The IPCC DOES have an agenda. Climategate proves that. The same people are there, they are just manipulating things better. If they did not have an agenda. then Climategate would have never happened. No, I do not trust their process. Please find another source to support your position. They are a discredited, tainted source. Big money is behind them.
Wait a second - do you know what Climategate is, or who was involved in it? They didn't work for the IPCC.

Climategate was about four researchers at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, they did not work for the IPCC, they were simply authors of some of the papers the IPCC summarized. Their emails were illegally hacked, and showed these scientists in a bad light, but the IPCC papers are based on the literature as a whole, not the work of any one group of scientists. And when you say "the same people are there", they were never running the IPCC in the first place.

And if you look at some of the claims people are making about Climategate, they often rely on taking quotes out of context to make them mean something different from what they mean in context.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-answer
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ptics-lies
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply