Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for cornwall alliance

Comments matching the search cornwall alliance:

Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial

MA Rodger at 20:27 PM on 18 August, 2019

Postkey @14,

While Monckton continually lays on the bunkum, his grand work Monckton, Soon, Legates, Briggs, Limburg, Jeschke, Whitfield, Henney & Morrison (2018-unpublished) 'On an error in applying feedback theory to climate' surely demonstrates the apex of his incompetence. (I should mention that some of the many co-authors may be unaware of their co-authorship.) According to the write-up on the planet Wattsupia, Monckton's grand work was supposed to set out how:-

1. It can be proven that an elementary error of physics is the sole cause of alarm about global warming – elementary because otherwise non-climatologists might not grasp it.
2. It can be proven that, owing to that elementary error, current official mid-range estimates of equilibrium sensitivity to anthropogenic activity are at least twice what they should be.

Monckton's bunkum certainly goes beyond incompetence, but Monckton's grand work takes it to a new mind-numbingly high level.

IPCC overestimate temperature rise

MA Rodger at 00:07 AM on 6 November, 2018

Samata @65,

The Monckton YouTube video you link to appears to be the 'work' presented in Monckton et al (Unpublished) which remains unpublised because it is total nonsense. You ask for the mathematical errors. There may be many but the central problem Monckton has is his insistence that climate sensitivity can be calculated on the back of a fag packet in the following manner:-

If the black body temperature of a zero GHG Earth is 255K and there is, according to Monckton, enough forcing pre-industrial to add 8K to that temperature directly from those forcings (giving a temperature without feedback of 263K), then if the actual pre-industrial temperature with feedbacks is 287K, the feedback mechanisms have raised the temperature by 24K. Monckton then calculates the strength of these feedbacks as a portion of the full non-feedback temperature (287/263-1) = 0.09. [This, of course, is a big big error.] Thus ECS(Monckton)= 1.1K x 1.09 = 1.2K.

(See Monckton's explanation of his basic method at Roy Spencer's, a climate denier who refutes Monckton's methods).

The big big error is in attributing pro-rata feedback to all the black body warming. It is also an error to run with these back-of-fag-packet calculations all the way to zero LL-GHG (what Monckton calls NOGS) but not as dreadful a mistake as using them pro rata all the way down to absolute zero.

His back-of-fag-packet calculation should be saying that 8K LL GHG-forced warming results in 33K of warming at equilibrium, thus ECS = 1.1K x 33/8 = 4.5K, a value that is high but not entirely implausable.

A more sensible analysis would not consider that ECS is a constant value over such large temperature ranges. And there will be feedback mechanisms operating without LL GHGs being present. But they will bear no resemblance to the feedback mechanisms facing a world at 288K.

State of the climate: 2018 set to be fourth warmest year despite cooler start

Mal Adapted at 09:21 AM on 22 August, 2018

nigelj:

According to wikipedia, Roy Spencer who compiles the UAH data is an agw climate change sceptic to some extent, and has strong religious fundamentalist views and has signed declarations that say our climate change is natural.

Well, Spencer signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states:

WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
...
WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
...

Ellipses represent arguments from consequences, boiling down to "mitigation will harm poor people."

IOW, evidence be damned: AGW can't be a threat because God wouldn't allow it. By signing this document, Spencer has publicly announced his determination to fool himself, and IMHO has forfeited all scientific credibility thereby.

Models are unreliable

Tom Dayton at 11:40 AM on 27 June, 2017

NorrisM, initially I'm going to assume you are who you claim to be, though the content of your post makes me suspicious--very suspicious--that you are one of SkepticalScience's fake-skeptic, trolling, chronic sock-puppeteers, and one in particular.

Your statement

The APS panel consisted of six (6) arm’s length physicists (with no axe to grind) chaired by Steve Koonin who were asking hard questions of both sides. What actually struck me as very astounding was how honest Koonin was about his previous lack of understanding as to how uncertain climate science is owing to the uncertainties underlying the climate models.

is incorrect. Steve Koonin is a notorious fake skeptic, who has both the background and the subsequent, repeatedly delivered, information to know that most of what he says and writes is factually and drastically incorrect. Christy has and continues to make claims that are factually incorrect, and is motivated primarily by political and religious beliefs. Christy's partner in crime is Roy Spencer, who is a member of the Cornwall Alliance that claims human-caused global warming is impossible because God promised Noah there would not be any more floods. Really. LIndzen's pet theory about the "iris" mechanism that self-regulates the Earth's temperature conclusively and repeatedly has been proven wrong (obviously, since Earth's temperature has varied drastically--Snowball Earth, ice ages,...) but that has had no effect on his opinion, and he very much resents and takes personally the criticisms. Curry once was an adequately productive climate scientist, but for reasons I won't speculate on here, has become quite the opposite.

One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

scaddenp at 09:27 AM on 26 March, 2015

rocketeer - it would seem the Cornwall Alliance theology conveniently ignores anything concerning divine consequences for human greed and disrespectful destruction of divine creation.

One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

rocketeer at 07:52 AM on 26 March, 2015

Sure, accounting for diurnal drift is important but is there any account for Dr. Roy Spencer's belief that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history"? (Spencer, Roy W. (signatory and advisor), An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, Cornwall Alliance, May 1, 2009) This could certainly influence analysis of satellite topospheric temperature data.

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

tanelorn26 at 20:21 PM on 22 October, 2014

Hi folks, need a little advice, in correcting some information contained in our small town newspaper written by Joe D'Aleo, it seems that Dr legates has come to his defense regarding the Cornwall alliance. It seems Joe is taken to writing Alex Jones style diatribes, im not sure i can devote the time to continue to correct his misrepresentations? I'm a not a scientist, and I think I'm a bit over my head. Any advice or assistance would be appreciated. I know a little bit about these folks, and as I learn more, I'm shocked by what they espouse.

Thanks

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

Composer99 at 05:40 AM on 4 October, 2014

I don't believe paul appreciates the irony of admitting, essentially, to being incapable of fairly evaluating the science behind AGW ("Since I'm not a scientist") - and backing his claims up with references to WattsUpWithThat to boot! - while demanding that Skeptical Science present "real" science (to him, personally, no less) and "root out" such riff-raff as Al Gore - and all that despite having manifestly failed to show where SkS - or climate science generally -has fallen short in the "real" science department, or failed to show why Al Gore is "our" problem to "root out" (or, for that matter, what he has said about AGW that is actually incorrect).

I, however, do.

I also appreciate the irony that paul demands that SkS present "real" science, rather "than quoting Bible versus [sic]", even though the only reference to the Bible in the OP is contained in the quote from the Cornwall Alliance. (I make no claim about the version of this article up at The Guardian.)

Rob P (inline mod response @19): Will that animation be added to the Skeptical Science gallery? It's fantastic.

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 3 October, 2014

CC - that cornwall Alliance stuff is seriously scary. We share the planet with people who think like this? I would like to think most Christians would run screaming in the other direction from a travesty like this. Let's hope some real theologians go after them as well.

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

citizenschallenge at 12:04 PM on 3 October, 2014

Dana does SkS's CC Reposting policy remain in place?

I just posted this,

Dana at SkepticalScience.com reports on the Cornwall Alliance

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/10/dana-skepticalscience-cornwall-alliance.html

is it OK?

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

citizenschallenge at 11:47 AM on 3 October, 2014

For what it's worth, I happen to have recently finished a point by point review of the Cornwall Alliances "The Biblical Perspective of Environmental Stewardship: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors" - that some might find interesting.

Beisner: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God - say what?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/beisner-subduing-earth-glory-god.html
"The Cornwall Alliance tells us they speak for the God Almighty of time, creation and life - then they use their God as justification for rejecting hundreds of years worth of Earth observations and increasing climate knowledge. Curiously their God does happen to totally embrace the neo-Republican/libertarian "free" market ideal.
This Cornwall Alliance document reminded me of the beautiful babes and tough cowboys used to sell cigarette, only Beisner is using God to sell his attack and denial of solid scientific knowledge. Tragically such superficial media campaigns seem to be quite successful at wooing an all too apathetic public.
Even though rational communication with such people seems next to impossible it's important to take the time to point out their base misconceptions, misrepresentations and out'n out lies, even if only to let other's know that the truth is out there.
. . . "

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

scaddenp at 08:32 AM on 3 October, 2014

I'm often amused by US evangelicals claiming climate change impacts are God's punishment for things like gay marriage laws etc. A rather more obvious sin with biblical retribution would that of greed. Doesnt seem to get a mention despite US energy consumption per capita being among the highest in the western world, around twice that of UK. Maybe Cornwall alliance folk should spend more time reading prophets and gospel than genesis?

Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously

Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 7 May, 2014

To elaborate a bit on the characteristics of denialism, and how creationists, climate science deniers, and anti-vaccine activists share them in common, let me provide some examples:

1. Fake or Misleading Experts

Creationism - Ken Ham, Dr Michael Egnor (a neurosurgeon), William Dembski

Anti-Vaccine Activism - Andrew Wakefield, Dr Jay Gordon (*), Dr Vera Scheibner (a micropaleontologist)

Climate Science Denial - Christopher Monckton, Dr Roy Spencer (*), Dr S. Fred Singer (*), Dr Richard Lindzen (*), Ian McIntyre

(*) denotes misleading experts - people with pertinent expertise in the subject (e.g. Dr Jay Gordon is a pediatrician) but who are using their credentials to support or propagate false or misleading information, in the public sphere at least, if not in the literature (e.g. Dr Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance). (Some creationists I have named above might be misleading experts; but I'm not familiar enough with them to say so.)

2. Cherry-Picking & Misrepresentation

Creationism - claims about radiocarbon dating, this article showing distortion of so-called "No Free Lunch" algorithms, claims about the eye, or flagellum, making Charles Darwin out to be a proto-eugenicist, etc.

Anti-Vaccine - Wakefield's (retracted) 1998 Lancet paper (I don't recall seeing that one get trotted out as much since its retraction), some rubbish papers by Laura Hewitson et al (also retracted), claims about various ingredients in vaccines (formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.), the "Fourteen Studies". I could go on - maybe search the vaccine topic thread on Science-Based Medicine for some more examples.

Climate Science Denial - the "pause" in global warming (cherry picking a small portion of the surface temperature record while ignoring the behaviour of 95+% of the climate system), the obsession over outdated papers (Hansen et al 1988 and Mann et al 1999), Anthony Watts' "surface stations project".

3. Logical Fallacies

Creationism - false dichotomy (either their misrepresentation of evolutionary processes must be true, or God/an "Intelligent Designer" did it), ad hominem or similar argument (e.g. accepting evolution leads to the Holocaust, courtesy of Ben Stein).

Anti-Vaccine - ad hominem (what Dr David Gorski calls the "pharma shill gambit"), red herrings (appeals to the issues surrounding thalidomide, Vioxx, or, say, the Tuskegee experiments).

Global Warming Denial - ad hominem (pretty much whenever Al Gore or David Suzuki's names come up), strawman argument ("CAGW"), appeal to popularity (here's a good example, or you could bring up the Orgeon Petition), guilt by association (Donna Laframboise's book about the IPCC).

4. Conspiratorial Ideation

Creationism - In Expelled, Ben Stein alleges that the scientific community conspires to ruin the careers of those who express any doubt in the "scientific orthodoxy of Darwinism" (quotes used to denote sarcasm, not direct quote). Especially religious creationists are liable to discern the influence of Satan or other supernatural forces of wickedness in the widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists.

Anti-Vaccine - One activist, Jake Crosby, is famed for trying to playing "six degrees of separation" to try and tie pro-vaccine advocates to pharmaceutical companies. Conspiracy theories are also called upon to explain why public health departments & researchers would continue to support vaccination programs despite the alleged harms of vaccines.

Global Warming Denial - The allegations that the UEA-CRU hack exposed fraud, or that the subsequent inquiry findings were whitewashing. Any time the claim is made that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax or fraud for the purpose of securing grant money. Any time the claim is made that climate science is part of a wider "eco-fascist", "Marxist", or what-have-you plot to establish despotism.

5. Impossible Expectations/Shifting Goalposts

Creationism - I'm not as well-read on creationist tactics on this front, but I understand that creationists have made a big fuss about lack of certain transitional forms, or even set up impossible expectations for what sort of transitional forms might be found (e.g. the "crocoduck"). The shift to "Intelligent Design" as the primary public vehicle of creationism is a goalpost shift.

Anti-Vaccine - Despite its unethical nature, many anti-vaccine activists call for a double-blind trial of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Anti-vaccine activists occasionally demand 100% certainty of the safety or efficacy of vaccines. I have personally had an anti-vaccine commenter demand that science either develop the capacity to predict who would be harmed by vaccines (an impossible expectation at present).

Climate Science Denial - The "quantum" behaviour of denial as recently discussed on Skeptical Science is a perfect example of shifting goalposts. A good example of impossible expectations would be Judith Curry's "Uncertainty Monster", or similar claims that we just need to do more research for a few more years/decades before we can make policy decisions (because it's all so uncertain).

Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously

Composer99 at 23:28 PM on 6 May, 2014

Warren:

Dr Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

The Declaration also includes the statement:

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

So, yes, Dr Spencer is a perfect example of the connections (and parallels) between creationism and climate science denial. Which you, unsurprisingly, reflexively dismiss.

(Incidentally, Dr Lindzen, one of the other atmospheric scientist "skeptics" has endorsed the Evangelical Declaration, although he is not a signatory.)

To further Tom Curtis' examples, both creationists and climate deniers also make liberal use of the known techniques of denialism (as do anti-vaccine activists): fake or misleading experts, cherry-picking, logical fallacies, conspiratorial ideation, and impossible expectations/shifting goalposts (I am certain that someone has linked to the Skeptical Science article describing them in a thread you have participated in).

Your platitudes about the virtue of skepticism notwithstanding, the simple fact is that if you read or listen or watch enough material produced by self-styled "skeptics" of climate science you find that they are (a) uncritically accepting of outrageously, obviously false claims (c.f. the Evangelical Declaration, claims about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, any myth addressed on Skeptical Science, etc.) and (b) appear unable to accept even the most preponderant, clear-cut evidence that climate research reveals. That's not skepticism, plain and simple.

Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

Paul D at 04:50 AM on 25 February, 2014

Cornwall Alliance - "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."

Well the bit - '...are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting...' - is correct but since God has defined the rules of Physics and let us know those rules, we know that the rules can result in harm to humans.

In other words it is self regulating and correcting, but that doesn't mean that process will always sustain humans. You would have to deny there was ever an Ice Age to believe that the only outcome good be good for humans.

I think the Cornwall Alliance statement is a creation of the human mind not God.

The problem Spencer has is that he may have to create 'fictions' eventually in order for his religion to match his science. It's already looking like that, which might explain why he and others are getting cornered and becoming more extreme.

Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

One Planet Only Forever at 00:30 AM on 25 February, 2014

Spencer's participation in the Cornwall Alliance appears to indicate that his Doctorate of Philosophy is in Spiritual Reflections that cannot be proven or disproved, just be discussed for as long as some are willing to potentially believe them.

That explains his persistence at a hobby he has little evidence of skill in, climate science.

However, his person view that "God has ensured that Humanity can do no wrong" contradicts the clearly established and open admission of the fallibility of humans and the need many have to confess their sins. And it is not likely to be the motivation for his persistence in arguing against climate science (he is not participating in developing the fullest and best understanding. He is clearly struggling to argue against that effort.

There has always been a strong motivation in some people to disbelieve that benefiting from burning fossil fuels was unacceptable. It fits the pattern of reluctance to accept any new information and better understanding that indicates the unacceptability of what a person is accustomed to enjoy getting away with. As examples of this obvious and powerful motivation to dismiss new information and discredit those attempting to lead to a more sustainable society and economic arrangement I offer the following unacceptable things that are persistently fought against:

driving after drinking
speeding
newly established parking fees
smoking in public places
high-fructose corn syrup
pesticides and herbicides used for pleasure or convenience
antibiotic use to deal with the problems developed by cows fed grains to make them grow quicker. Feeding grain to make cows grow quicker also leads to greater risk of contaminated meat because the bowels of those cows contain compounds poisonous to humans.
non-Caucasians are equal and acceptable (and the versions that have struggled to be applied in many other cultures).
non-Christians are equal and acceptable (and the versions that have struggled to be applied in many other cultures)
private ownership of killing devices and carrying them in public is unacceptable.

The motivation of Spencer and others is clear. Their interest is not in the Science, it is abusing their understanding of the popularity of Non-Science to prolong the ability of some people to benefit more and longer from unacceptable attitudes and behaviours. Al Gore may be best known for "The Inconvenient Truth", but his book "The Assault on Reason" is more pertinent to the climate science 'debate' (and calling it a debate is clearly debatable)

The actions of the contrarians are unsustainable and damaging, just like the popular and profitable activities they persistently struggle to defend. The sooner they are unable to get away with the unacceptable things they want to get away with the better it will be for everyone else.

Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

Elmwood at 18:25 PM on 24 February, 2014

As far as I can tell, the Cornwall Alliance basically holds that God wouldn't let the environment be seriously harmed by the burning of fossil fuels because oil and coal have allowed some people to become more prosperous.

It sounds like a health and wealth gospel more or less, that God desires his elect to be materially rich. This is really very dangerous stuff because it’s confusing a scientific question with a religious one and will only make the denier movement more fanatical.

Funny, I thought Pope Francis mentioned that "when nature-creation-is mistreated, she never forgives". I guess he's reading a different bible.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Steve Metzler at 09:32 AM on 7 May, 2013

I'm with composer99 and others on this. Whenever Spencer's name comes up in a positive light in a climate science related thread, inevitably flung out there by a contrarian, I now throw the Cornwall Alliance book right back at them. It's nearly always *crickets* after that.

The poor man must carry a boatload of cognitive dissonance around with him.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Composer99 at 14:01 PM on 5 May, 2013

Phil L:

I don't really see the Cornwall Alliance as being a matter of reflecting badly on evangelical Christians - at least not in the context of Dr Spencer.

Rather, what I perceive is the case is that it reflects badly - very badly - on Dr Spencer.

Basically, as far as I can see, as long as you have your scientific integrity intact, you can be corrupt, perjured, flawed, fallible, whatever - and still function effectively as a scientist.

But if you compromise your scientific integrity, it doesn't matter how upstanding you are in every other area of your life - it's game over, as far as being taken seriously as a scientist goes.

IMO Spencer signing on to the Cornwall Alliance means he has sacrificed his scientific integrity. Stick a fork in him: he's done.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Phil L at 03:10 AM on 5 May, 2013

Please don't judge all evangelicals by those like Roy Spencer who signed the Cornwall Alliance. Check out the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which accepts climate science, takes the threat of climate change seriously, and calls on evangelical Christians to address the issue.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Russell at 23:05 PM on 2 May, 2013

As Monckton's first job was as a Catholic journalist, his latest venue is unsurprising. One shudders to think what claptrap he has laid on his fellow Knights of Malta, Pat Buchanan included.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition to take action at this late date, but Christopher's making common cause with heretics so flagrant as the Cornwall Alliance Calvinists should earn the censure of his Grand Master- if he can get a word in edgewise.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

John Fisher at 19:18 PM on 1 May, 2013

Roy Spencer's endorsement of an open letter from the Cornwall Alliance in which it is stated "It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth..." expresses his starting point perfectly, and therefore his answers will always be the same, regardless of actual data.

Several familiar names here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

shoyemore at 16:53 PM on 1 May, 2013

Catholic Online would have done far better to interview Spencer about his membership of the Cornwall Alliance, which espouses the "greed gospel", and regards fossil fuels as part of God's bounty it would be an insult to pass up.

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/30/right-wing-preacher-not-using-fossil-fuels-insults-god/

Given the Papal positions on climae change and poverty, now that would have been an interesting interview.

Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies

shoyemore at 16:48 PM on 4 March, 2013

Ecklecktius,

I notice deniers fall over themselves trying to claim trying to claim Richard Feynmann as a talisman. Feynmann was a sardonic, intellectually tough individual who could flirt with Californian wackiness and keep his science straight. Somehow, I do not see him falling for Tallbloke's espousal of the luminiferous aether or Dr Roy Spencer's Creationism and membership of the Cornwall Alliance. Nor do I see him buying into the conspiracy theories purveyed on WUWT or Jo Nova.

Feynmann was rather conservative and elitest when it came to science. "Post-Normal science" would have been alient to him. He believed in following observations rigorously, inter-scientist discussion and peer-review. I think he would have joined his friend, fellow-Nobelist, colleague and rival Professor Murray Gell-Mann in speaking up for the traducing and betrayal of science by both fringe figures and Establishment politicians.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyPs5ou0DcE

Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming

Jeremy C at 02:52 AM on 16 September, 2012

John,

Thanks for this post. As a conservative evangelical christian (originating from Sydney Diocese - good heavens!) stuff such as what the Cornwall Alliance produces dismays me.

It seems to me that the Cornwall Alliance is attempting to use language to push the buttons of various christian groupings within the evangelical spectrum but that they don't quite make it (thats apart from the theological holes large enough to fly a jumbo through). That maybe a cultural thing as they are North American based, but I can still see how it could catch some christian groups other than in North America. I suspect amongst evangelicals this might be the people who tend to view science and scientists as a distinct ideological grouping

On pre-millenial, post-millenial, lets-do-the-hokey-pokey, I like the answer given during a talk I attended by a lecturer from Regent College in BC who when asked what position he took said he was a 'pan millienist', "i.e. it'll all pan out in the end".

On creation and Gen 1 to 3 if anyone is interested, christian or otherwise, and has the time the book, 'In the beginning' by theologian Henri Blocher is a brillaint but dense read. I doubt such a well argued piece of theology will appeal to those who drafted the Cornwall Declaration. Don't knock this if you aren't a christian theist, the best way to answer creationists is via theology and you will find good theology bats away stuff like the Cornwall Alliance material.

Finally, along with John there are other evangelical christians who as scientists have been very vocal in talking about the dangers of AGW including Dr Katherine Hayhoe and of course Dr John Houghton who has been instrumental in talking directly to American and other evangelical leaders on this topic.

Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming

villabolo at 03:23 AM on 14 September, 2012

Kevin C @17

My question to John was out of curiosity. IMO post-mil was, at one time, the most pre-disposed to social/environmental concerns. Things have changed radically throughout the past 30 years. (Off topic but worth reading)

An example of American fundamentalist thinking on the environment can be found here and this jewel from the Cornwall Alliance.

Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming

WheelsOC at 04:24 AM on 13 September, 2012

The Cornwall Alliance is an excellent example of rejecting the findings of science in favor of ideology out of a religious, dogmatic approach. It seems that the signatories take it as an article of religious faith that humans can't wreck God's planet, because God wouldn't have allowed it. It's similar to the dogmatic, faith-based rejection of common descent by Creationist anti-evolutionists. It's telling that Roy Spencer is both, and has signed the statement of faith from the Cornwall Alliance which basically pins their beliefs about the climate to matters of sectarian religious belief rather than scientific evidence.

Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy

Dave123 at 23:47 PM on 23 June, 2012

Ross McKittrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration:

WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

Signature page

I do not consider it an ad homenim attack when someone publicly declares that his mind is made up, and he cannot be confused by the facts. Why should any University accept any work by McKittrick as a serious work of scholarship, as opposed to theologically motivated propaganda?

Roy Spencer's Bad Economics

Dave123 at 20:35 PM on 15 March, 2012

Curiously, this has evolved into a political discussion about left vs right takes on things. What fascinates me is the faith vs evidence bit.

One of the claims (or rather diversions) made by deniers is that AGW is like a religion. But as noted so many of the deniers are advocates of an Americanized version of the Austrian School of economics....something that lacks empirical evidence and is instead a series of rhetorical postures.

Thus there are (at least) three articles of faith that they wish to hide from discussion:

1) Because pure central management of the economy (coupled with totalitarian governments) have failed, the opposite extreme of pure free market economics must be right.
2) Everything will be cheaper in the future. (and we'll have flying cars, moon and mars colonies etc.)
3) Since Erhlich and the Club of Rome didn't get the timing right for the population bomb, there will never be any limits to growth.

And let us not forget in the context of Spencer, that not only does he run a website dedicated to 'conservative' economics, but he is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance declaration on God's beneficent managment of the environment and the impossibility of man mucking it up.

A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate

John Hartz at 05:04 AM on 1 January, 2012

Rather than speculate on what motivates many Christian Fundamentalists in the US to reject what the scientific community is telling us about manmade climate change, why not read what they have to say in their own words.

The best place to start this learning process is the website of the Cornwall Alliance

In their own words: “The Cornwell Alliance is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. The Cornwall Alliance fully supports the principles espoused in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, and is seeking to promote those principles in the discussion of various public policy issues including population and poverty, food, energy, water, endangered species, habitat, and other related topics.”

The Cornwell Alliance’s “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” is particularly telling.

Do organizations like the Cornwell Alliance exist in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, elsewhere?

Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey

Albatross at 04:01 AM on 24 November, 2011

The real motivation for this whole affair is so transparent, and I sincerely hope that the media, politicians and public are not duped a second time.

First, this release of the emails stolen back in 2009 has occurred a week before the climate talks Durban. The emails were initially stolen before climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009.

Second, the hackers have explained why they think this is necessary and it has nothing to do with the science. The hackers say:

"One dollar can save a life"

"Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

So this is about them pushing their ideological, and horribly misguided agenda. People really need to understand where this is coming from. It is not about transparency, scientific rigor, complying with vexatious FOI requests from "skeptics" and deniers, or the IPCC review process.

This pathetic and desperate ploy is only about people who are in denial about AGW pushing their ideological agenda, in the process holding us all back and ultimately bestowing more suffering and pain and poverty on those very people who they so righteously allege to care so much about. They are using those poor people in developing nations as pawns in a political game.

And who alleges to care so much about such poor people and who weaves their plight into their narrative to stall taking action on GHGs? Those in denial about AGW Monckton, Christy, Spencer and others. Spencer and McKitrick (Steve McIntyres buddy) are members of the Cornwall Alliance who believe that:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

In other words, burn fossil fuels at will because it (supposedly) helps the poor and the earth is self-regulating and self-correcting.

Clouds Over Peer Review

nautilus_mr at 23:18 PM on 9 October, 2011

Scrap that last -found it. On the site I see that Spencer co-authored this paper at the Cornwall Alliance. A quick skim suggests it is similar to his other offerings.

Clouds Over Peer Review

nautilus_mr at 23:05 PM on 9 October, 2011

re comment #4, Dave123

Your point about Spencer being a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance declaration is very interesting -and would explain a few things about powerful non-scientific motivations for the way he goes about science.

But... I've just had a look at their site and can't find any reference to him. Can you please post how you made the connection between Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance?

Clouds Over Peer Review

Dave123 at 17:50 PM on 7 October, 2011

We'll have to keep repeating this until it's common knowledge at every local bar:

Spencer and McKitrick are signatories to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration:

Signatories

which has as two of its statements of faith:

1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

and

1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

Spencer places his faith before science. He's not a scientist....he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps

Dave123 at 13:00 PM on 30 September, 2011

@25 Saltspring Person-

You seem to be unaware of the religious aspect of global warming rejectionism. Both Spencer and McKitrick are signatories to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,
Cornwall Alliance Signatories

stating among other things that:

1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

and

1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

Which leads to your point 1 about scientists suppressing other scientists. McKitrick and co-author MacIntyre have conducted the primary attack on Michael Mann's Hockey stick. Their statistical tools have been shown to be corrupt:

Summary of Analysis of M&M with links to peer reviewed publications

at the same time- someone was attempting the equivalent of a DoS attack on Hadley by flooding them with FOI requests.

SkS discussion of 'ClimateGate'

Was this McIntyre's doing? So the question is who started trying to suppress who first?

What other suppression do you have in mind? Is there any supression currently going on?

The rest of your points have been addressed by others, but I'll add that for there to be a change of opinion in 5 years, the data ought to be on the ground now, bedcause it will take time to replicate it and explore it. So what's your unrecognized smoking gun?

Understanding climate denial

Dave123 at 09:27 AM on 29 September, 2011

I hope this isn't regarded as ad homenim on this particular thread- but as far as I'm concerned Spencer declared himself a non-scientist when he signed the Cornwall Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.

Cornwall Signers

One cannot expect anything from him other than efforts to reinforce his religious beliefs. This kind of denial is also found on the basis of politics- once you've concluded that the post-Vietnam environmental movement is a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) you will see everything in terms of a collectivist conspiracy. Data doesn't matter, evidence doesn't matter.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Dave123 at 07:33 AM on 20 September, 2011

Shub,

This may be ad homenimem, and the moderators may pull it. But I put the following proposition to you:

If someone publicly states that as credo, as faith that some things are beyond science, then can we start to suspect that they aren't in fact scientists at all, but some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing? That they are not operating in good faith except towards their credo and their co-believers?

Until a few minutes ago I had no idea that the Cornwall Alliance existed. Now I see that Spenser and McKitrick are members and signers of its credo.
Cornwall Alliance Declaration on Global Warming

You don't like the IPPC. How are you on other organizations with actual announced agendas? If you don't like Greenpeace having a say in what happens at IPPC, what about testimony under oath from Cornwall Alliance people?

And y'know, I find your distinction between congressional testimony and publishing in the scientific literature most peculiar. I don't buy it in the least.

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2

Robert Murphy at 22:37 PM on 1 March, 2011

Spencer is the main science advisor for the Cornwall Alliance. They released a paper called "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming". Spencer authored the second part concerning the scientific case against AGW; while he mentioned paleoclimate in regard to the MWP and the LIA, he never mentioned the Ice Ages. However, the first section of the piece deals with the theological objections to AGW, and they *did* mention what caused the ice age:

"While there is evidence that sea level was once much higher than it now is, that evidence is best interpreted in light of the flood of Noah’s day—a never-to-be-repeated, cataclysmic judgment of God that would have been followed by a sudden ice age (accompanied by much reduced sea level as water was stored in vast ice sheets on land) as the atmosphere lost its high water vapor content and so cooled rapidly, and then a gradual recovery as temperatures rose and water vapor rose to approximately its concentration(accompanied by a gradual sea level rise to present levels as the continental glaciers melted and ocean waters expanded as they warmed)." (page 15)
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

There you have it: The Ice Age was caused by Noah's Flood!
You can't tell me he didn't know what was written in section one. He either had no problem with that claim or he lacked the integrity to withdraw from the document and the Cornwall Alliance. Considering his rejection of evolution, I have no trouble believing the former.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results