Slashdot Mirror
Pope Francis To Issue Encyclical On Global Warming
HughPickens.com writes The Guardian reports that following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, Pope Francis plans to publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds. "A papal encyclical is rare," says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences who revealed the pope's plans when he delivered Cafod's annual Pope Paul VI lecture. "It is among the highest levels of a pope's authority. It will be 50 to 60 pages long; it's a big deal." The encyclical will be sent to the world's 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. Within Catholicism in recent times, an encyclical is generally used for significant issues, and is second in importance only to the highest ranking document now issued by popes, an Apostolic Constitution. "Just as humanity confronted revolutionary change in the 19th century at the time of industrialization, today we have changed the natural environment so much," says Sorondo. "If current trends continue, the century will witness unprecedented climate change and destruction of the ecosystem with tragic consequences."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
He's not a climate scientist and his paper isn't peer reviewed.
This Pope is the best one we've had in MANY years! He seems genuinely concerned for the average person, and seems to apply the standards Jesus used, which is precisely what a pope should do!
May God bless him!
And may people who stubbornly believe it's OK to screw up the environment be sent to a very warm place, where there won't be any climate change, ever.
Acknowledging the scientific consensus is "environmental radicalism" now? Let's face it, the deniers are the ones engaging in radicalism.
Apparently listening to the world's scientists and acknowledging reality is now a "radical position".
Pretending that all is well with the climate, and that our only problem is that our entire scientific community is delusional, OTOH -- that's the reasonable and moderate position.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Can't God just wave his magic wand and make global warming go away?
You liked the Popes that hushed up rampant pedophilia and hobnobbing with the powerful and rich?
What ever floats your ark.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ha, haha, hahahaha.
Well this atheist wishes you both irrelevance, though if he's going to be relevant I'd prefer his brand.
On a side note why is it whenever I read posts like the above, when I click on them, I can be absolutely certain the poster is none other than Mr AC.
As an atheist, I have to say that I respect this Pope for trying to drag the church, with many kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
And not just the church - look what he did to help the US and Cuba. A year ago that wasn't even on the radar.
I wonder what else he has up his sleeve.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And here you have it folks, straight from the front lines of Slashdot. Millions of dollars and countless hours spent on the subject and the answer is only three lines long. mfearby, I salute you!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
-1 Downvote for quoting the Daily Mail on anything.
The leader of one very large religion joining forces with the very large religion of MMGW.
All MMGW religion is "settled science" with no need for the denying heretics to be heard
Facts be damned! - we "believe" in MMGW!
Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief implies taking something on faith, even in the absence of facts. The facts supporting the theory of MMGW are quite clear. Reason, not faith, dictates that this theory be given greater weight that those being put forth by those who benefit from ignoring the problem. I suspect that the Pope's message will be that, as the Xtian god has charged humanity with being stewards of their world, a carefully reasoned course of action is called for.
I *believe* you have that backwards. The evidence supports MMGW, you *believe* that to be a myth. If you have any facts by all means share them. I suspect what you have are some number of people whose specialty is not climatology saying they don't believe in MMGW.
"his ridiculus support for evolution"
Um, every pope for eighty years has supported evolution. The catholic church has been officially supportive of evolution since the 1950 encyclical.
This Catholic will tell him to get bent. The contents of an encyclical are not considered infallable.
So accept the science instead doofus. Why are you here, anyways?
I know of them! I've been annoyed reading of them before. It's a conservative organisation that is defined as the exact opposite of the environmental movement. It is their belief that natural resources were created by God, for Man - and thus it is not only mankind's right to exploit them, but a divine duty to do so. They also reject the possibility of climate change on the grounds that God wouldn't create a world so fragile that humans could break it*, and regard the free market as the solution to pretty much everything. Their approach is that no-one would willingly damage land they personally own, so if all land is in private hands then it will be safe from environmental destruction.
Their main rhetorical device is to frame things as helping the poor. For example, on climate change, they'll point out that emisions reductions have a considerable economic cost, especially in developing countries - cheap energy is the great driver of economic growth and advancement. Therefore emissions reductions efforts frustrate the growth that would otherwise lift people and whole countries out of poverty. Throw in a picture of some starving children in Africa, and it turns into a story about how stupid liberals are killing children by denying them access to the wealth of oil and industrial agriculture. It's effective because it's arguably true to some extent - and it would be a perfectly valid argument, if they weren't ruling out any possibility of climate change causing far worse problems on grounds, not of scientific reasoning, but of theology: God wouldn't let that happen.
*According to their own website: "As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Although Earth and its subsystems, including the climate system, are susceptible to some damage by ignorant or malicious human action, God’s wise design and faithful sustaining make these natural systems more likely—as confirmed by widespread scientific observation—to respond in ways that suppress and correct that damage than magnify it catastrophically."
Idiot. Pope Frank doesn't represent you. He represent GOD. You think Catholicism is a democracy?
...and is an atheist of long standing, what Pope Francis has tried to do has only revealed how morally bankrupt the RC church really is that it spends time and effort trying to embrace science, even when that science is disputed by scientists, because its a "moral imperative". We've already heard from some preposterous stuff from deep-green environmentalists (aka back to the wonderful Stone Age world of peace with Mother Earth) that AGW is a moral imperative, and sure enough, religious people are trying to join as well.
I am old enough to mistrust any politician or religionist who talks about anything as a "moral imperative" because it usually implies mob justice and the crushing of civil liberties. Look at the history of the World. Look at ISIS right now whose highest priority is the moral imperative of submission to Islam. Tell me I'm wrong.
Personally I think that the Pope should spend his time cleaning out the stables before inviting people to see his horses. He could start by rescinding the preposterous policies on contraception created by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s, toning down the opposition to abortion to a rational policy, and letting priests marry and letting divorced people remarry. Because the stench of hypocricy and unjust policies is much stronger than the Vatican's entire supply of incense to conceal.
But what do I know? I'm just a poster on Slashdot.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
The temperature has NOT risen since 1998. Fact.
That "fact" hasn't been true for years. Cherry picking 1998 worked for a while, because it was an unusual year, but not keeping up and picking a new cherry makes you look stupid. 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1998 and if you bother to look a the data, you'll see the upward trend is clear.
Climate change might be a non-issue, but ignoring the facts doesn't help make that decision. Is there a reason you want to stick to a false fact so hard? A lot of conservatives seem to think the only solution to climate change is communism, so they resist the facts at all costs. This is silly. The free market is the best way to solve this problem. We just need to figure out where there are externalized costs and fix that. We need conservatives to get on board and help make the right choices instead of covering their ears and saying "No, no, no, no, no no!"
All the "conservative" Catholic AGW deniers are apoplectic right now. Just watch, you'll hear something along the lines of "Francis is a radical commie sympathizer!" especially after their involvement in helping normalize relations with Cuba.
Who the fuck cares what the pope says?
While I admire many of Francis actions, he was not the first Pope to respect evolution. That honor goes to Pius XII, which is surprising considering most Popes named Pius were complete bastards who should not have been allowed to live much less given any authority. The Vatican accepts both "God made Man with magic" and "God used evolution to create Man" as valid possibilities. They do not say it was evolution, just that God can use whatever tool he damn well pleases because he's God for fucks sake.
Good job on being more conservative than the Vatican of half a century ago. It takes a lot of brain-damage to accomplish that feat.
Ah, that old it-hasn't-warmed-since-1998 argument. Here you go:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
(I would have made the link actually link, but /. really ought to catch up and do that automatic as well as have a red envelope to see replies in the meantime. Hell, it doesn't even work on iOS devices when not logged in, can't changed what comment levels to see, it was better 15 years ago. What an antiquated site. My new year's resolution is to dump it for r/science and r/technology.)
That depends on what data you're looking at and how you slice it. For the moment, let us suppose that your conclusion is correct and that global temperatures are indeed not rising. That leads to one of two conclusions: 1) The original theory was wrong, CO2 doesn't trap additional solar energy despite the fact that it does so in all laboratory testing or 2) The extra energy is going somewhere else since the climate is a complex system, for example it could be dumping all the heat into the ocean where we don't have a lot of monitoring equipment. Given the rising trend of extreme weather events, melting of the ice caps, extended droughts and other symptoms possibility two seems much more likely.
The real question isn't whether CO2 emissions are trapping additional energy which can result in a variety of climate changes, it's how long will the changes take, and what's the cost/benefit tradeoff of either dealing with them or attempting to prevent them.
Never thought I would see the day when the head of the the Catholic church represents a beacon of scientific rationalism dragging the rest of the first world into the modern era.
Citation on actual sea levels rising and inundating any place on the globe, please.
Have a Day!
Takes a lot of faith to believe in those GCMs that continue to fail to predict warming
Have a Day!
Citation provided hereby. Any further requests?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/06/environment/pacific-islands-fighting-for-survival-as-sea-levels-rise/
...boggles the mind. I mean, this is a tech website, you'd expect people here to be on average more intelligent or at least to have a better scientific culture than the average. And yet, whenever there's an article about climate change, there's always a bunch of morons spouting completely ignorant statements defeated by 10 seconds of googling. Where do all these people come from?
Someone has to look out for the Christians of the world.
Hint: Jesus was against Pharisees and Money Lenders. If you think he said for you to get rich and destroy the world, you're reading the wrong bible.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There's a huge difference between rationally discussing the solution to a problem and ignoring the existence of a problem. Both result in a solution, one by abdicating the ability to affect the outcome.
The sooner the world starts having serious political and social debates about what (if anything) should be done we'll be better off. Until then we're stuck with a lot of finger in ear lalalalalalalalalalalalalala'ing the issues.
So if any US politicians change their tune about global warming because of what the Pope said, does this mean they are allied to a foreign power? Isn't it important to start booting people out of office that would do that?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Kirribati Islands. The water supply is already compromised by sea water, they are in the process of moving the population to Fiji. http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
How utterly and typically ‘republican’ – to only accept those ‘scientific’ facts that happen to help you at that particular moment If the pope were to honestly embrace science including skepticism and scientific method, he would question his place on the planet for the religion he serves as head of. From a US perspective this could be the final straw the causes US Catholicism to break away from the holy catholic church of Rome
Adam & Eve - the executive version:
His boss, kicked "us" out of the executive lounge - where we had free finger food and funny games* all day - and there was nothing else to do, than to praise him and follow his rules - not to eat the apple from the special tree (tree of awareness).
We voilated his only rule and became aware due to eating the apple from the tree of awareness.
God realized that now at least four entities (god, adam, eve, satan a.k.a Snake Plisken) with awareness existed.
And so he said when people are aware of theirselves they don't need a caring god, they can live on their own with *any help* from daddy.
This is why HE/God/His boss can't/won't fix it. Because our sin is awareness so mankind is fully responsible for it's own actions
And as we are responsible for our actions, we should try to act accordingly.
And not hope, that the CO2 content conserved over hundreds of millions of years excavated and reintroduced into the atmosphere over a term of ~150yrs. will have really no effect on the climate.
*(adam & eve games)
*(in the start at some point in time god went arsonist on some olive trees)
The only "data" I see on that site is carefully cherry-picked to suit the domain name. There's no original data, no broad surveys, no methodology for his conclusions, certainly no peer review, and his claims are all easily falsified by looking for oneself at the rest of the data.
The only reason anyone would trust a site like that to think for them is to carefully avoid contact with genuine studies, in case they contradicted your belief system.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I remain mystified by how such a sane and decent person has risen so high within a large institution.
Believe there was a group of folks that occupied the area where the English channel is now. Sea levels rose, and inundated them. Can't find the evidence where they were driving SUVs though...
He represent[s] GOD.
I'm not so sure - he often sounds like a compassionate atheist.
Just do another Great Schism then. The more warring religious factions are around the sooner all people will realize that religions are just childish wishful thinking and abandon them fully.
Have you heard of this guy Paul who wrote most of the new testament? He said: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."" (Galatians 5:14)
Some of your neighbors are gay. Paul ordered you to treat *all* your neighbors with love, and so did Jesus. Pope Francis is just following orders. If the Bible is your authority on truth, you should too.
Conservative Christians/Catholics grossly misunderstand their Biblical history. Compared to the conservative Jewish tradition of his day, Jesus was a FLAMING liberal. Eating with sinners and tax collectors! Breaking the law when it doesn't make sense! Forgiving sinners that were caught red-handed! These are part of why everyone was so pissed off at him: he was too liberal.
Conservative Christianity has been infected by hatred, judgmentalism, self-righteous pride, and disgusting selfishness. And you, Mr AC, are a fine example of exactly this.
You seriously need to have a heart-to-heart with your God before it is too late.
This year is likely the warmest year on record with the rate of Antarctic ice loss tripling in the last decade and Greenland's ice loss worse than predicted. But believe whatever you want to believe, no matter what the facts.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
There is no way you can believe a claim to be factual without using belief and faith.
There is always a chain of trust - a belief that your senses are accurately showing you reality; that scientific observations were documented properly; or that scientific models built off of those observations reflect reality; or even a belief that there is an objective reality at all!
perhaps you need an update of the real science - try this for a start. http://www.skepticalscience.co...
it seems the only cure offered is to either severely restrict our lifestyles or increase the costs of everything so that it has that same effect
That is standard denialist fearmongering and propaganda, this thinking that the only cure is lots of sacrifice. It's not true. It's the opposite. It will employ an awful lot of people to do much of the work we can do to address Climate Change. That's a lot of jobs.
Lots of those things will also make our personal lives better. In general, it's called efficiency. Now flat screens are in nearly every way better than CRTs. Refrigerators became much more efficient in 1996.
People should get over their predujices about what makes cars pretty, and embrace better aerodynamics. One example is the Aerocivic. As noted on that site, there were bonuses with the improved aerodynamics: the car is quieter, stays cleaner, and is steadier, which makes it safer. Trucks can use vortex generators. One guy I know objected to vortex generators on the grounds that they were ugly. I asked him why was it important whether an already butt ugly truck trailer not have these? Surely not for the sake of beauty?
Then there are roads. Who could possibly object to smarter traffic lights? Everyone who has ever driven much has had the experience of being stuck at a red light for nothing, because currently the devices are not capable of sensing traffic soon enough to be proactive. They are essentially mindless with no ability to learn traffic patterns and adjust their timing.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Absolutely. When you don't like the solution, it means the problem wasn't real anyway.
The facts involved in global warming are actually easily verified. You can do so in your basement if you like. All you need to do is to prove that CO2 absorbs IR energy of a certain spectrum. Then you will be able to calculate the temperature change for a doubling of CO2, as a straightforward result of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You can even test that if you like, with the same equipment. Coming up with a good estimate of global atmospheric carbon levels might be a little tricky, but probably doable. Verifying that there is a vacuum outside of Earth's atmosphere is hopefully not a big point of contention, because that one would be really challenging. You would probably have a hard time measuring incoming solar irradiance very precisely, but you might be able to rule out large changes in it. You would be able to test fairly easily that Earth re-radiates absorbed solar radiation in the IR range.
That CO2 absorbs IR energy is the crucial point, and the most easily verified. Knowing that the Earth is surrounded by vacuum lets you ignore non-radiative heat transfer to and from this place. With those two facts, if you raise the partial pressure of CO2, the temperature must rise, all other things being equal. Solar irradiance is the only factor to consider with regards to whether or not things are being held equal, and it varies less than .1% on all but the longest time scales. The atmosphere can be held constant because almost all of it is transparent in the IR (and visible, naturally) with the exception of H2O and CO2. Now, the H2O is a serious problem, but it's also not something we can do anything about. There are large deposits of the liquid form almost anywhere you'd care to look, and for most purposes we consider the atmosphere to be saturated with the stuff. That leaves our faithful friend carbon dioxide.
This is undergraduate stuff. Hell, it's after-dinner conversation in my house. Calling it religion is labeling yourself as either a liar or someone dumber than his nick would suggest. AGW is comprehensible and provable by anyone with a first-world education.
You haven't bothered to research any cost-neutral schemes, nor paid any attention to actual projections of carbon taxes. If you make up the numbers I am sure they are pretty shocking. There isn't a "scientific" cure, that doesn't mean you can ignore the problem. We're somewhat worried about sea level rises, but the temperatures are the bigger issue. The rate at which we're dumping carbon into the atmosphere is completely unprecedented in human history, and on track to equal the largest outgassings in the planet's history. That's what's so special about it, "dumass". Food production areas don't shift easily, Siberia is not going to be farmable even if it melts. You melt permafrost, you get a bog, and it will stay a bog for hundreds or thousands of years. Fertile topsoil is not just dirt and not something that just happens, it's a complex ecosystem of its own that takes geologic time to develop. Farming there is slightly more viable than trying to fertilize the desert, or using hydroponics exlusively, but not that much more viable, and whatever happens you will still have to deal with a short growing season; the length of the day won't change. It's not "shifting the food production areas", it's getting rid of the existing food production areas and hoping that the rest of the ecosystem changes will be in our favor. The odds are not good.
How about instead of being part of the problem, we start working towards a European lifestyle. We could halve our emissions per capita without dipping below their living standards. This shit isn't that hard. Stop acting like you have a God-given right to pollute the planet. In point of fact, you have a God-given responsibility not to, as the Pope will no doubt point out. You know all that whining about entitlement that you've been doing? Look in a mirror.
Funny thing about atheism - it matters not one whit to compassion. That the Pope's position should should overlap says good things about Pope - too long has Catholicism pandered to kings while neglecting the common people it claims to shepherd.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The Florida Keys are experiencing the effects of sea level rise.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Just where everyone should get their science information - a hardcore Lefty priest.
You hypocrites are always making fun of religion, and calling catholics pedophiles and faggots.
That's bullshit and you know it ...
We would never call catholics 'faggots'.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
The pope is nothing compared to liberals. Liberals have ALL the answers to life's problems. They also have a cohesive set of beliefs and standards that will create a perfect society if only the unwashed would listen to them, and follow their tenants religiously. In this sense Liberals ARE GOD, and are much much more important that some faggy as pedo called the pope. Don't believe me, just ask a liberal. She or he will tell you that in fact she is Perfect, and then wage a sin tax on you for being white.
All must bow to the magnificence of liberal thought.
I christen thee Stupidest Post of 2014
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Evolution works - let's see what's next!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
For many years the Catholic Church has maintained that global warming is a real problem and that people should act accordingly, -as stewards of God's earth. Pope Francis has taken it a step farther but it's not a sudden change in position.
I was raised Catholic but no longer consider myself one. I still have a fascination for the Church's history and how it functions. I also share some of its values. To those that consider it an ultra-conservative organization, that's only partially true. It often isn't, at least not in the US political sense of the word "conservative". It's also a very large organization that exists within many countries and cultures. Though there is only one set of beliefs and teachings, the emphasis placed on those different teachings varies from place to place. For example, many Catholics in the US practice birth control even though the official teaching of the Church is that it's a sin (aside from "Natural Family Planning"). Few US priests (at least in my part of the country) are going to attempt to lecture their congregations on it.
So even though the Pope has put more teeth behind the Church's official stance on global warming, that doesn't mean that Catholic climate change skeptics are going to suddenly tow the party line. It will hopefully mean that the larger organization will make funds available to its churches to make them "greener" but I doubt it. Money tends to flow only in one direction within the Church.
As an atheist, I have to say that I respect this Pope for trying to drag the church, with many kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
Actually you are off by a century (maybe more). In the 1920s a Catholic priest at a Catholic university proposed the currently accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe, the big bang. In the 1960s (or earlier ?) the Catholic church accepted the biological evolution of life including man. The church stated last century that the language of Genesis is figurative not literal. It also stated last century that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith.
If you want to look at earlier centuries much early research was done by members of the clergy, ex genetics. And various bishops were key in establishing the modern western tradition of the scientific method in Europe.
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles...
Isn't it strange that accepting what for all practical purposes must be called the scientific consensus is described as 'radical'? And stop calling deniers 'conservative' - a conservative is somebody who, after giving the matter some thought, feels that the old ways are best - whereas the deniers are people that refuse to apply their intellect at all, if there is a risk they might have to change their minds. I have a lot of respect for conservatives; rather less for deniers.
The temperature has not risen in the past decade or so
Which means absolutely nothing for the trend. When the yearly statistical noise is about equal to a decade's worth of trend, you'll find that the decade long "pauses" are nothing special. This graph should enlighten you: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Note that it has the raw data in red, and two trend lines. One calculated over 1970-2000 and the other from 1970 to current. As you can see, the two trend lines are in complete agreement.
You liked the Popes that hushed up rampant pedophilia and hobnobbing with the powerful and rich?
Sorry, but it sounds like Pope Francis has published a list of all the child molesters they know they've relocated. Can you drop a link, please?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
it also say that through God, all things are possible (therefore a Godly rich man could).
Yes, by giving his wealth to those who need it, thus becoming not-rich of money, but rich of spirit. But he still won't be rich when he dies — once his wallet shrinks, perhaps the camel will fit
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But bums on pews doesn't affect the climate in any way
Sure it does. If you stay home, you don't drive to church, or to the waffle house.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are you a practicing climate scientist who has personally checked all those facts? Not many people who would agree with you are. But they are looking at something written down that they- perhaps even you can never check or verify other then asking someone else if it is correct. But it's your version, it's real and factual, just like the faith Jews or Christians, or Muslims have.
Bullshit. First, there are degrees of wrong. Plus, you know, science works.
I am actually a published, practicing scientist. I can do the basic smell test on the papers, if not understand the tiny details.
To come to the conclusion that "the concensus is probably right and that in any case, I have no compelling reson to doubt the conclusions" the only "faith" I need to have is to discount the preposterous notion that the world's climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to defraud us all.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Regarding CO2 the earth is a closed system.
Except for solar radiation the earth is a closed system!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The claim that the temperature has not risen in the last decade is wrong anyway. ... but you can not expect that every olympics all gold medal winners make new olympic or world records.
2014 had a a lot of heat records, not as many as perhaps 1998
And finally: 2014 is the year with the highest average temperature on the planet since we measure.
I have no idea where that bullshit idea comes from that the temperature has not increased the last decade.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Whispered under breath:
Eppure si raffredda.
Sure, God's an atheist too, from his own perspective.
Anyway, I'm fine if the Catholics want to shiver in the dark. Cheaper energy for me.
Catholics don't consider everything the Pope says to be the incontestable word of God. That is a misconception. Only certain teachings or documents written by the Pope are considered "infallible". They have to meet very particular criteria and are rare. This is on purpose because they've learned the Church has to live with those proclamations forever.
In the case of the above poster, I don't think he's bright enough to figure out how to create a user account. Most of the time it seems to be people who are too cowardly to have their name associated with their beliefs. Several times Mr. AC has told me that I was stupid for posting something that can easily be tracked back to my actual name because future employers might take umbrage. (My reply has always been that I wouldn't have wanted to work for people like that anyway.) It's typical of the breakdown of the whole online forum format though, which is too bad because it's my favorite type of online discussion.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The Earth also radiates heat out into space, and loses atmospheric gases due to thermal dissipation.
There is allot more heat retained at the equator than at the poles. And luckily, ocean currents and other systems bring heat towards the poles, where it can then be lost to space more easily.
Its more complicated than this, but not enough research is being done on this very subject because its inconvenient to the AGW theory though most of the systems in place that allow for this are very well known.
At least he didn't quote The Onion
For all reasonable considerations our atmosphere is in fact a closed system, and what does escape can be quantified. Gravity and the magnetosphere keep escaping gasses to a minimum. Albedo varies over time but is measurable to within a remarkable number of decimal points by satellite. Anything that is not reflected is absorbed, either by the atmosphere itself or by the water and land below it. Re-radiation is also measured by those same satellites.
Of course other climate events affect overall global temperatures, and of course there are other 'forcings' at work. My 4th grade niece would set her hands on her hips, look at you, and say, "Duh!" Are you of the rather absurd opinion that the models that people have labored over refining for decades don't attempt to include them? I would highly recommend that you look at a few of them, you will be surprised at the work that goes into the process of modeling (I know I was).
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility originated in the First Vatican Council in the late 19th century. Before that the pope was just a man. A very powerful man, but not the font of god's direct word.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Oh, goodness, you pick the hottest year in history and when the next few years don't **quite** equal that extreme point confidently declare that the entire century and a half observed warming trend is invalid? Really? Look up 'statistical outliers' and try to comprehend the concept and then get back to us. By the way, 2014 is now the hottest year on record, you're going to have to reset your talking point.
still do not completely understand all of them
They've been studying and modeling the electron for over a century and still do not understand everything about it, either. That doesn't stop us from using them to operate these magical boxes that we communicate with.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
At a cost to who? This is where idiots parading the religion fail severely. So energy costs increase, jobs are created, and all is rosy. The reality that gets glossed over is simple economics. energy costs increasing means people who use energy pay more, products that require energy to make cost more, and the jobs created do not replace the jobs lost. Furthermore, the jobs created will be filled by the expanding labor pool as populations increase or a cost of retraining will be placed on the displaced workers. and this all gets ignored because you only want to think about your utopia you have created in your minds.
You cannot just will something to be more efficient. Either advances in technology have to happen or tradeoffs that increase costs- otherwise the efficiencies would already be present because it allows for the most profits. Case in point, According to the federal government, the latest fuel economy mandate will increase the price of a car by almost $3,000 which the NADA claims (pfd warning) will price nearly 7 million drivers out of the market for a car. But that's ok, those 7 million people don't need to drive anyways because they are poor and imaginary or something.
Yep, you just made an interesting point. People do not need to be free, they must think and support what you do. All this climate change cure talks inevitably leads to someone trying to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives or money and you think the warnings are just denialist fearmongering and propaganda even when you commit the very acts being decried yourself.
And here we are again. You seem to be upset that people do not want to do something you want them to do. Why does their freedom upset you so much? I mean some trucks already have the VGs- they do not decrease wind resistance enough to justify their costs through fuel savings. Perhaps when they are installed at the factory. But that one guy you know is free to not want them no matter how much you think he should.
Finally, something where there is a legitimate reason for government control. Now I could object to smarter traffic lights when the costs outweigh the benefits but where they typically are being installed there are problems being corrected. But spending millions of dollars for extra lanes or smart lights in towns with a population
It would be wise to argue against what was actually said and not what you wanted to be said. It doesn't have the appearance of you setting up straw-men to knock down.
The smell tests on papers is equivalent to it sounds good. All you are going to go is reject obvious bullshit you do not agree with. If you are not actually reviewing and repeating the science, you are taking on faith that what they say it correct and not fiction created for whatever reason.
And no, no mass conspiracy connection needs to be made at all. Garbage in and garbage out is a saying for a reason. If the inputs which are largely shared among all researchers are contaminated, even legit papers can be incorrect while technically being scientifically correct. As a published, practicing scientist, you should be well aware of that. Unless you have validated all the inputs, you need to have faith that others did and did it competently enough for their work to not be erroneous.
But even if you did all that and were 100% sure, you are not the vast majority or people who cannot, does not have the time, or access to do it. My point still stands.
Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.
Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.
Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.
The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.
Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.
Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".
It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.
If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.
The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?
That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
Actually, you won't. 97% of the papers that took a position on global warming between 1991 and 2011 support it. Out the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mention climate change or global warming, only 83 rejected the central premises of AGW, while 3894 supported the premise (the remaining 7967 mentioned climate change or global warming but did not expressly support or deny it). So if you consider 0.7% to be "plenty", then I question your mathematical abilities.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
1. I never declared the entire warming of the last 50 years invalid, please point to where I said that;
2. Nice talking point about the cherry picking of the hottest year. I started at 1996, not 1998. It is very well known, even by the ipcc that this is the point from where the hiatus, slowdown, pause is plotted from. But if you want to go back to your blogs for confirmation, they will only use the 1998 talking point.
Hiatus
3. Again, using blogosphere or media talking points, showing 2014 as the hottest year on record. Please point to me where on this graph 2014 is hotter than 1998 or 2010? ÀHottest year
4. The observations, so far from studies on the electron have yielded positive results. When comparing models to observations, they are no where near. In any field of science those models would have been thrown out and redone from scratch or would have not been used as the main factor in determining policy.
...I thought the Catholic church were supposed to be waiting in eager anticipation of armageddon. Are they trying to delay it now? What's going on in theocracy land?
But, ask yourself what does it mean in becoming like "gods", you don't follow rules, you make rules, and thus are fully responsible for your own actions.
Guess what dummy, he isn't one. The Pope is Catholic.
I believe you have bought into the MMGW or CAGW talking points to uphold the faith.
ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are scientists of different fields.
Your ignorance of that fact just shows how little you know about the field, or how hard you work at making the debate one sided.
Climate scientists are made up of:
- Physicists - Astrophysicists - Meteorologists - Geologists - Geophysicists - Hydrologists (engineering) - Environmental sciences - Mathematicians - Statisticians - Economists - Atmospheric scientists
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
A classical case of both abductive reasoning and confirmation bias. Some climate scientists are geologists, but not all geologists are climate scientists. Some climate scientists are mathematicians, but not all mathematicians are climate scientists. And so on. Yes, if you water down the definition to include more and more people, you will get a few more dissenting voices. But its still minuscule compared to your base. Nearly all professional scientific organisations accept man's influence on the climate. None is known to maintain the dissenting opinion. And while some of the dissenters have written "papers", most of these "papers" have not been published by the scientific press, but by so-called think-tanks or web blogs. Even so, finding "plenty" is a far stretch - it's a small group of deniers with maybe three or four people with some credibility left.
Stephan
You should really just admit that you made up your mind on this for emotional reasons and that no evidence will ever change your mind. That way, you'll still be a complete dick, but you'll be an honest one.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Like I said, there are degrees of wrong.
That and you are dishonestly (or possibly through ignorance) conflating two vastly different meanings of the word "faith". And you didn't address my points.
Science, it works, Bitches.
Or less glibly, science has a well proven history at arriving at good answers. Do I know 100% that the current models for global warming are correct? No, of course not. However, based on the balance of probabilities from the underlying physics, the measurements and the general state of the scientific community and my knowledge and experience of how it works, there's a much better chance that the scientific community is correct compared to models/hypotheses arrived at by other people. So I'm going to go with the scientific consensus here. You could call that "faith" in the scientific community (presumably because I don't have proof). It's a very odd use of the word, and trying to conflate it with the sort of religious use of the word is patently dishonest. So no, your point does manifestly not stand.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Wow. A biased, conservative, science-denying site says the paper is unreliable, imagine that. The paper hasn't been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it's been claimed to be fraudulent by some guy writing for a web site. He's managed to find a whole 7 people who disagree with the classification of their papers. 7 out of 11,944, clearly an error rate of 0.05% is unacceptable.
I should note that at least one of the disagreements was erroneous, the abstract from the author's paper directly contradicts the author's claim and supports the categorisation given to by the Cook study. And another claims that the referees made him take out the unjustified conclusions that he wanted to include that would have made the paper less supportive of AGW, if only his conclusions could have been justified with actual science. Of course, those errors mean that the author of the blog post denying the Cook paper has at least a 28% error rate, but clearly that's acceptable when it's supporting your particular views.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
>
Are you a practicing climate scientist who has personally checked all those facts?
Oh, how predictable; your attempt to equate blind faith and the reasoned acceptance of the findings of an overwhelming number of "practicing climate scientists". Science is knowable. Valid results can be verified. If I were of a mind to, I could acquire the expertise and do so. There is, to understate it just a bit, a big fucking difference between that and blind faith.
Not really as one of the solutions to the problem is to let it ride and deal with the problems as they surface.
Uh, that would be a rational suggestion if not for the fact that there is no "dealing with the problems as they surface". By the time something "surfaces", it will be far, far too late to field any effective response. Or so the experts are telling us. I gather that you disagree with those experts. On what basis to you disagree?
There is always a chain of trust - a belief that your senses are accurately showing you reality; that scientific observations were documented properly; or that scientific models built off of those observations reflect reality; or even a belief that there is an objective reality at all!
By your logic, nobody should ever trust any scientific finding without have done the work for herself. By your reasoning, peer review counts for nothing. Those views are not rational. They are, however, extremely common amongst climate change deniers and others who would prefer to believe in a more attractive version of "the truth", despite there being overwhelming evidence of something less agreeable.
You're linking back to the same site, with the same problems.
The first "peer reviewed rebuttal" listed there is a complaint that Science refused to publish a letter that claimed that one of the studies was wrong. That certainly convinced me. I mean, a letter that wasn't ever published? What could it be more devastating? If they're starting with the strongest evidence, I am seriously under whelmed.
The second one is from Energy & Environment the editor of whom has admitted that she picks articles to further her political goals (which include opposing environment groups and activity).
Several of the papers listed in the linked blog post are from the exact same people who complained about the Cook paper in the previous link you posted.
The remaining are nit-picking papers complaining about how this or that metric used to measure expertise is not perfectly accurate.
Over billed and underwhelming, as usual.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
By your logic, nobody should ever trust any scientific finding without have done the work for herself. By your reasoning, peer review counts for nothing. Those views are not rational. They are, however, extremely common amongst climate change deniers and others who would prefer to believe in a more attractive version of "the truth", despite there being overwhelming evidence of something less agreeable.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm saying that belief and faith is a normal thing, and is necessary for humans to practice science.
So there's only a problem if you love science AND hate belief, because that requires suspending Reason. And how do you practice Science without Reason?
It's really sad how many people who supposedly are for science do not get these important details right.
See what I did there? To each is their own authoritative. But you say you can verify it- yet you have not to date which is obvious from your next sentence.
Yes, and if I had a mind to, my faith alone would allow me to walk on water. I just have not done it and likely will never do it but mark my words, the fact that I say i could lends all the validity needed to what the preachers are saying.
Sure there is, but only to a select few who have already reviewed and authenticated the materials presented. Otherwise, they are in the same boat as anyone else taking someone else word for it. We have seen this backfire several dozen times recently too. From Open Source software which have critical security flaws in them for decades despite the ability for anyone to grab the source code and review it themselves. We have seen scientific papers accepted and determined to be valid only to later be found made up and fake. Hell, we even have cases of congressional aids inserting text into bills that none of the politicians seem to know about. But even then, we have the famous you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill quote and an appropriate it would take 3 lawyers 3 days to figure out what is in the bill so we won't read it quotes.
There is nothing inconvenient about this regarding AGW or GW or any other "theory" or "model" regarding climate.
I don't get why people always come with such idiotic claims.
If at all, then losing gas from the atmosphere would cool the planet.
That the planet is radiating heat away is obvious.
And if you had listened to the AGW "theories", you knew that CO2 (and MH4 and H2O vapour) is preventing "proper radiation"
If you want certain research to be done then propose it, no idea what exactly you seek for.
You want to know how much atmosphere we lose every year? I guess we gain more than we lose (due to solar wind, but who knows :D )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."
""No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
The Bible might be ambigious on some things, Anon, but this is not one of them. God's Kingdom is the ultimate welfare state. And how could it really be otherwise, when everything you could use to earn merit - including your very existence itself - is a gift? Sure, maybe you made your fortune digging gold from frozen tundra with a shovel and a pickaxe - but where did you get the constitution, the willpower, the iron atoms in your pickaxe, etc. which allowed you to do so? Not to mention the gold itself was a gift, no matter how inconveniently placed.
So does that mean Capitalism is anti-Christian? Aspects of it are, the same as aspects of everything are, which is attributed to the current fallen state of the world in Christianity. It can be modified to make it more in line with Christianity, for example by using welfare programs to provide for people who can't earn a decent living within market economy, or free education to encourage social mobility, steeply progressive taxation to ensure those earthly fortunes produced for the winners of competition do some good for all, etc. etc. But people who claim their pet system is mandated by God/Bible/historical inevitability/whatever are usually far more interested in excusing their actions and positions than changing them, even if it takes 40 years and 31 volumes to throw up enough of a smokescreen.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Well known skeptic or not, the author in question directly contradicted the abstract of the results for his own study. It's right there for us to read and we can easily verifiy that his statement to your site was false according to the abstract of his study. So either the abstract is wrong and the author made a msitake in his paper or the author is wrong about his own paper, neither situation bodes well for the criticism. It's been known to happen, particular among so-called "skeptic" scientists where their public posturing is frequently different from their scientific results, possibly because their co-authors are less biased or they know their actual results will be rigorously reviewed unlike comments delivered to a blog of no particular noteworthiness.
A quick review of your site show it to be "politically independent" much like Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The refutations are listed chronologically. "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".
Not particularly important since it was never printed.
They are not simply "nit-picking" but criticizing the papers for completely misrepresenting the actual positions of scientists on this issue.
Actually, most of the listed papers are nit-picking. For instance, one of them complained that one of the papers misreprented expertise on the topic of climate change because they used a metric based on number of papers published in the field of climate science to measure expertise. The complaint was that since the vast majority of scientists working in the field believed that climate change was a real phenomonom that the paper looking at what the vast majority believed was biased towards what the vast majority believed. Shocking.
None of the criticism presented look particuarly compelling or notable, which seems to be why no one else is paying much attention to them. They are underwhelming and overhyped by your site.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If you could think on your own, you'd notice the difference between "authority" and "peer-reviewed evidence".
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Authentication of raw data might be useful, but hard to enforce when it requires a human agency to collect - and data fudging cases are pretty rare anyway. I don't see this as a significant problem.
Sounds more like your issue is with the trustworthiness of conclusions derived from those results, and I don't see how authentication could help there at all. The nearest electronic equivalent we have to that is a reputation score, and reputation has long been an important factor in scientific publishing. This is backed by anonymous review by a number of other reputable peers, and has been working pretty well for the last few centuries.
climate scientists in making decisions to change lifestyles
There's a lot of enormous leaps in that phrase. The vast majority of climate scientists simply present their conclusions about what has happened and is likely to happen, and peer-reviewed studies rarely even touch on solutions to the problems discovered (a few climatologists have been separately advocating for change, but not as part of the scientific body of work). No climatologist that I'm aware of actually has the political power to decide the lifestyle of anyone beyond their own family. And then there's the whole question of whether climate solutions require significant lifestyle changes in the first place, beyond simply phasing in a carbon-neutral energy infrastructure.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?