Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wade wrote:I really do believe that anyone who is serious about climate change and could share in my experience with Mennonites that for the most part would be impressed. You see I believe someone who is serious about climate change is going to take it seriously in their own life. And the Mennonites I have met for the most part are serious about being wise stewards and frugal with not wasting resources, as well as denying luxuries to help others in things like CAM.
I agree. And this is really the part that matters. It doesn't require a lot of scientific debate.
Wade wrote:So it doesn't matter what impression the general populace has because Christian's will always be misunderstood by general society. Meanwhile we continue on in His way for His glory.
When people pretend to be experts in things they don't understand, that's a different kind of witness. If people look at us funny because of that, it's not the same thing as being persecuted for the sake of Christ.
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:
Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:The exception to this is hardcore scientific publications that nobody seems to want to read.
This is not ScientificResearchNet. This is MennoNet. A place where us idiots can still voice our opinions. Why do you want to shut me down? What are you afraid of?
I am afraid that people will confuse Mennonites with culture warriors, the very people we should not want to be associated with.
Would you rather they confuse Mennonites with Social Justice Warriors?
I am afraid that people will come to the conclusion that Mennonites consider ourselves experts on things we know nothing about, engaging in the same kind of belligerent ignorance we see in so many debates around us. Audacity and bold language take the place of actually reading and understanding and discussing.
Hmmm... some Mennonites might be expert enough to share their "scientific" insights with other Mennonites. What's wrong with that? Some Mennonites might even want to persuade their fellow Mennonites to move beyond their belligerent ignorance - through discussion and reading and understanding.
I am afraid that we will teach people that truth belongs to the loudest, most dominant opinion in the room, and that there is no need to take the time to carefully understand things. Truth and facts are being devalued in so many areas of our lives, what matters is picking fights and taking sides ...
I've seen that a lot on MD and MN, especially when the discussions get going on politics.
Truth and facts are hard work. They require sustained attention. They are easily drowned out by propaganda and sensationalism in most circles.
Indeed, like the rhetoric that claims there is a 97% consensus among scientists on global warming which e are supposed to believe means that 97% of scientists agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations. It takes hard work to ferret out the facts and expose the truth about global warming.
Sure, this is not ScientificResearchNet, but does it have to be InflictMyPoliticalOpinionRepeatedlyEspeciallyIfItBothersPeopleNet? If it's not worth actually discussing at a useful level, why is it worth inflicting on everyone? Is this thread really what we want people to think Mennonites are like?
C'mon Boot, you may not realize how much you have driven this sort of thing. It almost seems that whenever someone like Robert posts a credibly sourced response to your political opinion you want to shut down the discussion.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I am afraid that people will confuse Mennonites with culture warriors, the very people we should not want to be associated with.
Would you rather they confuse Mennonites with Social Justice Warriors?
No, and that's not happening here either. I think there are reasons that we don't have a lot of threads discussing Donald Trump right now.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Hmmm... some Mennonites might be expert enough to share their "scientific" insights with other Mennonites. What's wrong with that? Some Mennonites might even want to persuade their fellow Mennonites to move beyond their belligerent ignorance - through discussion and reading and understanding.
Sure. Then let's have a real conversation where people respond carefully to the things that are posted, regardless of point of view, try to understand the data together, and approach things the way scientifically minded people do when they are looking for truth.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Indeed, like the rhetoric that claims there is a 97% consensus among scientists on global warming which e are supposed to believe means that 97% of scientists agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations. It takes hard work to ferret out the facts and expose the truth about global warming.
Let's start with that. Here's the claim:
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
That's really quite different from saying that 97% of scientists "agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations". There are credible ways to come up with figures in the low 90s, but there's no credible way to make the claim that mainstream science does not support the scientific claims of the IPCC. In fact, the scientific report of the IPCC is nothing more or less than a literature review, a summary of mainstream science done by mainstream scientists. Where there is dissent, the dissent is documented. We have been through this many times, but the same talking point surfaces again as though nothing has ever been said.

And the IPCC actually reports a range of projections, from optimistic to pessimistic, assigning probabilities to each. In these threads, I get the impression that I may be the only person who has actually read much of the IPCC's publications. It would be hard to get an accurate impression of what they say from posts in these threads.

Is anyone interested in taking the time to carefully read the IPCC publications, understand the process, understand the data, etc? I would normally expect that on a scientific forum, not here. But that's what it takes to have credible opinions on the IPCC.
C'mon Boot, you may not realize how much you have driven this sort of thing. It almost seems that whenever someone like Robert posts a credibly sourced response to your political opinion you want to shut down the discussion.
Please, read the first few pages of this thread. I've never been the person who starts threads on this topic, I just respond to what others are saying. That's not driving. It's odd that the people who bring this up act like I'm the person who is driving it.

When I find a credibly-sourced paper, such as the Nature paper, I read it. But so often, the paper says something quite different from what he implies it says. A discussion focused on credibly sourced papers would be a great improvement. Especially if we would take the time to actually read papers, summarize them, compare them to others ...

Asking someone where a graphic comes from and where I can find a description of how the data was gathered and represented shouldn't shut down a conversation, it should begin a conversation. At least when we are looking at a scientific subject.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I am afraid that people will confuse Mennonites with culture warriors, the very people we should not want to be associated with.
Would you rather they confuse Mennonites with Social Justice Warriors?
No, and that's not happening here either. I think there are reasons that we don't have a lot of threads discussing Donald Trump right now.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Hmmm... some Mennonites might be expert enough to share their "scientific" insights with other Mennonites. What's wrong with that? Some Mennonites might even want to persuade their fellow Mennonites to move beyond their belligerent ignorance - through discussion and reading and understanding.
Sure. Then let's have a real conversation where people respond carefully to the things that are posted, regardless of point of view, try to understand the data together, and approach things the way scientifically minded people do when they are looking for truth.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Indeed, like the rhetoric that claims there is a 97% consensus among scientists on global warming which e are supposed to believe means that 97% of scientists agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations. It takes hard work to ferret out the facts and expose the truth about global warming.
Let's start with that. Here's the claim:
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
That's really quite different from saying that 97% of scientists "agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations". And the IPCC actually reports a range of projections, from optimistic to pessimistic, assigning probabilities to each. In these threads, I get the impression that I may be the only person who has actually read much of the IPCC's publications. It would be hard to get an accurate impression of what they say from posts in these threads.

Is anyone interested in taking the time to carefully read the IPCC publications, understand the process, understand the data, etc? I would normally expect that on a scientific forum, not here. But that's what it takes to have credible opinions on the IPCC.
C'mon Boot, you may not realize how much you have driven this sort of thing. It almost seems that whenever someone like Robert posts a credibly sourced response to your political opinion you want to shut down the discussion.
When I find a credibly-sourced paper, such as the Nature paper, I read it. But so often, the paper says something quite different from what he implies it says. A discussion focused on credibly sourced papers would be a great improvement. Especially if we would take the time to actually read papers, summarize them, compare them to others ...

Asking someone where a graphic comes from and where I can find a description of how the data was gathered and represented shouldn't shut down a conversation, it should begin a conversation. At least when we are looking at a scientific subject.
Who determined that this is only a scientific subject?
0 x
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:Let's start with that. Here's the claim:
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
That's really quite different from saying that 97% of scientists "agree with the IPCC's projections and recommendations". And the IPCC actually reports a range of projections, from optimistic to pessimistic, assigning probabilities to each. In these threads, I get the impression that I may be the only person who has actually read much of the IPCC's publications. It would be hard to get an accurate impression of what they say from posts in these threads.
Your source for the consensus statement is not a peer reviewed journal or a scientific organization but an advocacy group.

My point is that what who it is that forms the consensus and what the consensus actually is (and how that consensus was measured) are quite muddled in popular culture.
0 x
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 »

GaryK wrote: Who determined that this is only a scientific subject?
Indeed. the whole subject has a lot of social and political implications. People have lost their jobs as a result of policies that forced coal mines to close, while others are making huge profits off of inefficient, government subsidized alternate energy schemes.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:Your source for the consensus statement is not a peer reviewed journal or a scientific organization but an advocacy group.
Well yes. You quoted an advocacy group, and you did it inaccurately. That is not a statement by the IPCC.
Wayne in Maine wrote:My point is that what who it is that forms the consensus and what the consensus actually is (and how that consensus was measured) are quite muddled in popular culture.
The IPCC scientific report is a consensus-driven literature review done by mainstream scientists, including the entire peer-reviewed public literature on the topic. Popular culture has no idea what that means. But it's clearly true that the entire scientific literature on this topic supports the IPCC report, which is nothing more or less than a systematic review of the entire scientific literature on this topic.

People like John Cook are trying to dumb this down with simpler, black-and-white statements. That seems to be what popular culture prefers. Most people prefer a simple, vivid statement that requires no work to understand, so this often turns into a fight among Internet memes.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Asking someone where a graphic comes from and where I can find a description of how the data was gathered and represented shouldn't shut down a conversation, it should begin a conversation. At least when we are looking at a scientific subject.
Who determined that this is only a scientific subject?
A scientific claim with a sciency-looking graphic? Should I evaluate that as theology or biblical interpretation or what?

I think the question of how we live simply on this earth is a whole lot contentious. And I don't think there would be a lot of dispute if someone said we don't have to understand all this fancy academic stuff to live our lives. The problem is precisely the claim to know more about science than the scientists, without being willing to be accountable in the same way scientists are.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Asking someone where a graphic comes from and where I can find a description of how the data was gathered and represented shouldn't shut down a conversation, it should begin a conversation. At least when we are looking at a scientific subject.
Who determined that this is only a scientific subject?
A scientific claim with a sciency-looking graphic? Should I evaluate that as theology or biblical interpretation or what?

I think the question of how we live simply on this earth is a whole lot contentious. And I don't think there would be a lot of dispute if someone said we don't have to understand all this fancy academic stuff to live our lives. The problem is precisely the claim to know more about science than the scientists, without being willing to be accountable in the same way scientists are.
My point is (and I think you understand it) that if this is more than a scientific subject then it should be allowed to be discussed as more than a scientific subject.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:My point is (and I think you understand it) that if this is more than a scientific subject then it should be allowed to be discussed as more than a scientific subject.
Sure.

Think we could have a thread with 57 pages on how we, as Christians, should approach living simply? Or what our relationship to the environment is? Or 57 pages on how we relate to expert opinion that we don't really understand? We could certainly use 57 pages on Internet literacy.

I think it would be helpful to change roles here and ask how we should act as Christians, not pretend to be better scientists than the scientists.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply