Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Bootstrap wrote: ...But global warming isn't really something Jesus answered. For that kind of question, I trust scientific associations more than lobbyist groups, and I cannot find any relevant scientific association that rejects global warming. I'm not counting lobbyist groups or groups funded with dark money. And I trust transparent review processes that include all published papers with a clear and public record of their decisions.

Who do you trust more than the scientific associations and the IPCC, and why? If association with government invalidates science, should we ignore hurricane warnings that come from government science agencies?
If I may quote Ronald Reagan: There you go again!

Climatologists who are skeptical of the IPCC's conclusions, projections and policy recommendations do not "reject global warming". Many (perhaps most) are part of the so-called consensus that the earth is in a warming period and that man's activities has some impact on the climate - but they are not a part of the mere 1.6% that explicitly hold the view that humans are primarily responsible for all recent global warming.

You can put the dark money issues to the side as well. It gets boring to hear the repeated assertions that Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, James Lovelock, et al are in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal. On the other hand, a lot of government and foundation funded research depend on the premise that humans are creating catastrophic global warming.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: ...But global warming isn't really something Jesus answered. For that kind of question, I trust scientific associations more than lobbyist groups, and I cannot find any relevant scientific association that rejects global warming. I'm not counting lobbyist groups or groups funded with dark money. And I trust transparent review processes that include all published papers with a clear and public record of their decisions.

Who do you trust more than the scientific associations and the IPCC, and why? If association with government invalidates science, should we ignore hurricane warnings that come from government science agencies?
If I may quote Ronald Reagan: There you go again!
This is really a fundamental question: where can I go for reliable information? My answer is still the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is normally taught in universities, etc.

You suggest that I look at a different set of climatologists. Who? Please be specific, and give me something that a trained scientist would normally consider reliable. John Christy is one scientist I respect who largely agrees with you. John Christy says things like this:
From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming.
But he also says things like this:
it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.
And so many of the scientists on one side of this issue are directly connected to lobbying groups and dark money. Who do you recommend I turn to, if the IPCC, scientific associations, and most peer reviewed journals are (in your opinion) wrong on this issue?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:Climatologists who are skeptical of the IPCC's conclusions, projections and policy recommendations do not "reject global warming". Many (perhaps most) are part of the so-called consensus that the earth is in a warming period and that man's activities has some impact on the climate - but they are not a part of the mere 1.6% that explicitly hold the view that humans are primarily responsible for all recent global warming.
Let's slow down a bit and be clear what we are talking about.

The "consensus statement" does not include all of the projections and policy recommendations. The consensus is that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible for more than 50% of it. And there really is a huge consensus for that among scientists in relevant fields.

People who agree with that may have a wide range of opinions on how dangerous that is, how quickly we can run into difficulty, or what to do about it.

For most projection in the reports, several possibilities are given, often four, ranging from optimistic to pessimistic, and different probabilities and certainties are assigned to each. Often, people who say they disagree with the IPCC actually agree with the optimistic projections but disagree with more pessimistic ones.

But once again: What alternative do you propose? If you reject the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is taught at universities, etc., where do you think I should look for good solid scientific research on this subject? I'm not going to let go of that question, because I think it is THE question if we don't want to be vulnerable to whatever some lobbyist is pushing or whatever someone posted on the Internet.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:Climatologists who are skeptical of the IPCC's conclusions, projections and policy recommendations do not "reject global warming". Many (perhaps most) are part of the so-called consensus that the earth is in a warming period and that man's activities has some impact on the climate - but they are not a part of the mere 1.6% that explicitly hold the view that humans are primarily responsible for all recent global warming.
Let's slow down a bit and be clear what we are talking about.

The "consensus statement" does not include all of the projections and policy recommendations. The consensus is that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible for more than 50% of it. And there really is a huge consensus for that among scientists in relevant fields.
That is not what the 97% consensus is. See the Dark Money funded post here: What is there a 97% consensus about?
But once again: What alternative do you propose? If you reject the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is taught at universities, etc., where do you think I should look for good solid scientific research on this subject? I'm not going to let go of that question, because I think it is THE question if we don't want to be vulnerable to whatever some lobbyist is pushing or whatever someone posted on the Internet.

Strictly in terms of science, the models on which the IPCC is making policy recommendations (remember, the IPCC is a political body, not a body of scientists) have been shown to over estimate temperatures when their predictions are compared to actual measurements. A large number of scientists and mathematicians may want to defend their models, but it is the fundamental nature of science that if the data does not match the predictions of the model, then there is something wrong with the model. There are alternate models, but the trend now is to defend the models that show anthropogenic warming (in some cases by adjusting the measured data) rather than tuning current or creating alternative models. No lobbyist or environmental activist or celebrity or former vice president can change the fact that the measurements do not match the models. Real science cannot assent to what popular culture is asserting about global warming, hurricanes, drowning polar bears and sinking islands.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:The "consensus statement" does not include all of the projections and policy recommendations. The consensus is that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible for more than 50% of it. And there really is a huge consensus for that among scientists in relevant fields.
That is not what the 97% consensus is. See the Dark Money funded post here: What is there a 97% consensus about?
Here is the claim made in the latest IPCC report:
It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
You can measure consensus various ways and get numbers from 90% to 97%, and you can ask scientists different questions, but there's clearly widespread agreement in the scientific community that this is true, and this is reflected in the statements of scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, university departments, etc. And I simply don't see a lot of alternatives - these are precisely the kinds of sources my scientific training told me to trust.

Since you are "only taking the side of science", where do I find the science you are siding with? I rather thought I was siding with science myself.
Wayne in Maine wrote:
But once again: What alternative do you propose? If you reject the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is taught at universities, etc., where do you think I should look for good solid scientific research on this subject? I'm not going to let go of that question, because I think it is THE question if we don't want to be vulnerable to whatever some lobbyist is pushing or whatever someone posted on the Internet.

Strictly in terms of science, the models on which the IPCC is making policy recommendations (remember, the IPCC is a political body, not a body of scientists) have been shown to over estimate temperatures when their predictions are compared to actual measurements.
First off, the authors and editors of the scientific work at IPCC is done by scientists, just like NASA or NOAA or the National Hurricane Center. The fact that governments sponsor the work does not change that fact. And when you say "have been shown to overestimate", that's what Scientist A says, but scientists B, C, and D disagree. I imagine you are looking at John Christy's results for that, here is how one other scientist responds to his analysis.

Comparing models to the satellite datasets

To really get into this in depth would take some time, precisely because we need to carefully look at the data and how Christy presented it, taking these other claims into account. But to me, at first blush, it really does look like Christy's presentation is misleading. And for the most part, I find the best way to follow these things is to track the debate over time in the scientific community over time.

And when you say "strictly in terms of science", you are avoiding the question. Whose science? You claim that there is a body of scientists who are objective, who seem to possess absolute truth, but you seem to be reluctant to tell me who they are or why I should trust them more than what the mainstream seems to be saying.
Wayne in Maine wrote:A large number of scientists and mathematicians may want to defend their models, but it is the fundamental nature of science that if the data does not match the predictions of the model, then there is something wrong with the model.
That's absolutely true - on all sides of any scientific question. So who is it that you think we should trust instead, and why do you trust them so much?

The main thing the IPCC does is a careful literature review of all published science, and it is a forum where scientists debate these issues.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Real science cannot assent to what popular culture is asserting about global warming, hurricanes, drowning polar bears and sinking islands.
Real science is more than sarcasm. Where do I turn for the real science you are telling me about?
Once again: What alternative do you propose? If you reject the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is taught at universities, etc., where do you think I should look for good solid scientific research on this subject? I'm not going to let go of that question, because I think it is THE question if we don't want to be vulnerable to whatever some lobbyist is pushing or whatever someone posted on the Internet.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
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 »

Bootstrap wrote:Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
appleman2006 wrote:I assume that both sides
Hmmmm, "both sides"...seems like I've heard that somewhere else recently... ;)
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

PeterG wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
appleman2006 wrote:I assume that both sides
Hmmmm, "both sides"...seems like I've heard that somewhere else recently... ;)
Yes - and I think the way to get past the politics is to focus on the science. Where I come from, we were taught to lean on specific kinds of resources to know what science says - what you really want to know is what the science looks like after scientists have debated the findings and the data in depth.

Which is why I keep asking where people are getting their science from.
Once again: What alternative do you propose? If you reject the IPCC, scientific associations, peer reviewed journals, what is taught at universities, etc., where do you think I should look for good solid scientific research on this subject? I'm not going to let go of that question, because I think it is THE question if we don't want to be vulnerable to whatever some lobbyist is pushing or whatever someone posted on the Internet.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
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 »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
PeterG wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote: I'm only taking the side of science and rational economic policy that thoroughly analyzes the consequences of environmental regulations. Believe it or not a scientist can find a flaw in a hypothesis and not be motivated by politics. :o
I did not ask for acknowledgement that one's own views are politically motivated; I'm confident that they're not in your case. But do you acknowledge that many who share your views on climate change are politically motivated in doing so?
In all sincerity, I don't see this as an either or, left/right, progressive/conservative, Democrat/Republican issue which seems to be the implication of your question. The scientists and engineers I know personally who share my view are not politically motivated.
Again, I'm not asking about yourself or these scientists and engineers with whom you are acquainted, but about some others who share your conclusions on the issue.
Wayne in Maine wrote:I think many people who are skeptical or even supportive of the perspective that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are causing increased hurricanes, the drowning of Polar Bears and the sinking of Tuvalu Island are reacting according to the information sources they trust and the education they have been subject to.
Yes, this is what I'm talking about. The "political method" from the cartoon you posted earlier.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by appleman2006 »

PeterG wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
appleman2006 wrote:I assume that both sides
Hmmmm, "both sides"...seems like I've heard that somewhere else recently... ;)
Sorry. Not sure I follow you????
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 »

appleman2006 wrote:Sorry. Not sure I follow you????
Charlottesville, Antifa, white supremacists, etc. Sorry, might've been a dumb thing to say. But it did make me think of that. :P

And I was a little annoyed that nobody who responded could keep themselves from pointing out that Those Other People deserve blame too. :-|
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
Post Reply