Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 Next
Comments 66351 to 66400:
-
funglestrumpet at 09:04 AM on 17 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Rating: about 8/9 Suggestions: Make the Monckton Myths, Christy Crocks etc section more formal in layout (looks a bit childish at present). It should have a title, such as: Prominent Mis-Informers. Move the OA not Ok, Interactive ... (needs checking as it appears broken!), Prudent Path and Lessons ... to their own separate section – they are not myths or crocks etc. Add a list of threads currently being discussed on this site. Have provision for visitors to suggest a new thread (the number of times something is suggested will indicate how important it is to the public at large). Have provision under the Comments tab for having a list all personal comments made by the person logged on and include references to their name so that replies are easy to see. At present, there are so many topics each week, remembering what one has said is a bit daunting. Then finding the comments and searching for replies is all a bit much. I now tend to comment and leave it at that. If people reply then I often don’t get round to finding out. It goes without saying that these should be in date order with latest at the top, and have a limit to one month, say. If possible, have an automatic email notification of replies posted. Overall, this would require a discipline regarding posting replies, such as: 'name'@X being required. Perhaps even having provision for replying to the actual post in situ, as some sites do (tabbed in to mark a reply), which would make the argument easy to follow (and drive John Cook mad, I suspect). Have links to all other prominent sites dealing with the topic of climate change. I suggest that this should even include WUWT. It would tell visitors that this site is sufficiently confident of the veracity of what it posts that it doesn't fear what other sites say. Have it near the myths section and the visitor will know that they can always return to see what the grown ups say. Leave a comment not yet submitted in a draft folder if the writer goes off somewhere else on the site in order to check something instead of just wiping the comment clean and lost to all (said with feeling!) Over and above all that, I am extremely grateful for all the hard work that is put into making this site as excellent as it is, thanks! -
pbjamm at 09:04 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. -Yoda -
Tom Smerling at 08:41 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Chris G @27 -- Totally agree with you that denials stems from fear. Anger is not a primary emotion; it is always the product of pain or fear. Scratch the cyberbully and you find a scared kid underneath. The imagined threats are ludicrously bloated -- "Al Gore's UN-based global eco-conspiracy will take away my SUV" -- but the emotion is all too real. My #1 personal take-away from the December AGU meeting was this "note to self": It's the fear, Stupid! -
pixelDust at 08:21 AM on 17 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
I realize this would be a big undertaking, but a comments system that allowed you to subscribe to threads and be notified (via email or a message on the homepage) of new responses would be great. Speaking of comments, here's a fairly significant bug: Skeptical Science Opera glitch - comment text doesn't wrap -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:22 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
DB at 11 I will respect your interpretation and administration of the Comments Policy. I did not intend to make insinuations of ideology and impropriety, and am not sure that I did. My apologies if my statement came across that way. Perhaps I should have used the word selective instead when referring to the press release issued by the CBD. The original research clearly lists natural and anthropogenic nutrient enrichment as the dominant cause of hypoxic and acidifying conditions in the bay. A reasonable attempt to estimate the amount and the impact of antropogenic CO2 is made. There premises have validity and as a scientist I think it justifies the need for further research. However, the CBD press release only refers to the absorption of CO2 by the oceans and ignores the nutrient enrichment issue. This may not be entirely the fault of the CBD staffer who wrote the press release because they don't have a science background. (-Snip-)Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
william5331 at 07:03 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Acidification doesn't strip sea water of shell building Calcium but it does make it unavailable. I know, I'm splitting hairs. Think of the local effect when methane clathrate breaks down and the methane combines with the oxygen in the water to make Carbon dioxide. Acidification and anoxia all in one package. The Arctic ocean, especially off the coast of Siberia will not be a pleasant place for sea life. Then the dead animals will contribute their load of oxygen consumption and methane/oxides of sulphur/ammonia production. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html -
Minkie41 at 07:03 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
We all abhor bullying,and in the case of Katherine Hayhoe this loathing is even more pungent because the object of the attacks is a woman.Would some enterprising North American resident establish an AGW Cyber-Bullies site?Hayhoes,Hansens,Manns and so on can then shovel the foulness into it so it can be source-sorted.Bios of the bullies could be developed so we end up with a repository of nastyness on which disinfecting sunlight might shine. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:45 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Sphaerica at 12 I 100% agree with you that science is forward looking. If you had read the original paper you would have seen this statement immediately following the paragraph you cut/pasted from Scientific American: "Of course,the uncertainty on this calculation is very high, as other changes that may occur over the intervening time were not taken into account, such as increased water temperature associated with anthropogenic climate change and its effects on biological and physical processes (e.g. Bopp et al., 2002; Hofmann and Todgham, 2010); changes in terrestrial inputs of nutrients, freshwater, and carbon linked to climate or land-use change (e.g. Borges and Gypens, 2010); or changes in marine inputs due to basin-scale changes in ocean circulation (e.g. Rykaczewski and Dunne, 2010)." The looking forward that needs to be done includes all the items listed above. -
dana1981 at 06:27 AM on 17 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
rockytom - thanks very much. renewable guy - there's a Search bar towards the top left of the page. -
renewable guy at 06:25 AM on 17 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
I depend a great deal on SKS for information when conversing with the skeptics. My fastest way of finding the posts that I am interested in is to do a search in google outside of the web page. Is there a faster way inside the web page I don't know of. Or can a search or list based on key words be brought inside the web page? -
amhartley at 06:25 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP, you said I'm "cherry picking," based on Matthew 8:27 & Matthew 14:26 "bearing in mind Matthew 8:26." I'm not sure how to interpret that, except to suspect you claim that, because God controls the weather, we don't need to worry about it? However, if we read God's sovereignty that way, then I suppose we could dispense with all acts of kindness & mercy. After all, whatever God wills, will happen. To me, that's cherry picking as well, of an even more extreme form. My apologies if I'm taking this in a direction you didn't intend. Plz help. -
rockytom at 06:18 AM on 17 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
I have been a fan of SkepticalScience.com and the excellent postings all along. I give the site a 10. Thanks to all the participants and especially John Cook and Dana. -
rcglinski at 05:47 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Has no one reproduced Hansen's '88 study using actual measured data as opposed to scenarios A, B & C? It's been almost 25 years, that might make for an interesting investigation. -
John Hartz at 05:44 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana's excellent article has been cross-posted in its entirety on both Climate Progress and on Planetsave. "Cato’s Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data” Climate Progress "Patrick Michaels Loves to Delete Inconvenient Data” PlanetsaveResponse:[dana1981] Thanks, also by Climate Crocks and Deltoid.
-
TOP at 05:38 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
daniel1
The last part about Jesus ecological footprint is interesting and that he owned and earned nothing. That is not strictly true. For most of his life he was a "technon" as was his father. We typically translate that word carpenter, but it was more than that. He had his father's business and perhaps was more of a building contractor familiar with stonework. It was only when he started his ministry that he left that part of things to his brothers, in part to make sure his mother was cared for while he traveled the countryside. And Jesus was considered a winebiber and glutton by his enemies. The difference between a Christian caring for the world and the present discussion is that the motivation to do so comes from God, not men. That is flipped around in the ECI statement. -
Ian Forrester at 05:37 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
If Michaels, Singer, Ball, Spencer, McIntyre, McKitrick et al. were executives in a public corporation and committed such fraud in a Prospectus, Financial Statement or MD&A there would be an outcry and charges would be laid. Why are people associated with think tanks, Universities and other Institutions exempt from this? For example, three top executives of Nortel Networks Corporation are on trial today in Toronto for such examples of fraud. -
Chris G at 05:25 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
tmac57, Putting on my pedantic hat, those in denial honestly believe, whatever belief that is; I find it difficult to imagine scenarios where you can exhibit a bias toward deleting information contrary to your position and still be called honest. -
TOP at 05:22 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@Tom Curtis
This is the quote out of the ECI Manifesto I was referring to:Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34–40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31–46).
While it cites the full text of Mt. 22:34-40 it only quotes a portion of it, and it is the quoting of a part of it that I am taking exception to. Sorry Tom, I meant Exodus 20:1-17. For some reason chapter 19 always sticks in my head and I have to flip the page. Anyone familiar with the text would have caught that error. There was a paper that was read at the NEA in December that quoted the whole passage. The NEA notes that Evangelical Christianity has historically cared for the poor with which I am in full agreement both in thought and deed. -
Martin at 04:57 AM on 17 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
45, Joe According to what I have been reading th "wet is getting wetter and dry ist getting dryer" is a very robust result, i.e. almost all models show this behaviour. What I'm looking for is an explanation that I can understand. -
Albatross at 04:45 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
muoncounter @38. I agree, can we all please keep this thread on topic. The topic being the vitriolic, hateful and even violent threats that are being made against not on Dr Hayhoe, both other Climate scientists and their families. Thanks. I also hope that regardless of peoples' position on AGW that they join us here at SkS in condemning these cowardly and menacing and disgusting acts in the strongest possible terms. -
CTG at 04:37 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Don't worry, Steve McIntyre will be along shortly to shine the light of truth on Michaels' unsavoury doings. Any moment now. Any... er... -
tmac57 at 04:10 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
cynicus-" One cannot help wondering if this is really true skepticism or merely one-sided skepticism..." It is neither.It is denialism. -
angliss at 03:25 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I know of at least one other related example. In Michaels' blog "The EPA to the greens: so sue us", Michaels deletes a caption for a figure from the USGCRP that contradicted Michaels' claims. Remarkably convenient, that. -
newcrusader at 03:14 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Political comments are not allowed here. But What does the CATO Institute & Forbes Magazine have to do with Science? Dr. Michael- he represents both. Conflict of interest? -
muoncounter at 03:06 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Let's focus. The issue here is neither one of exact Biblical quotation nor interpretation; it is the reaction to Dr. Hayhoe's work - and the work of other climate scientists - by the hateful. The comments by Dr. Donald Brown are very relevant: we encourage civil society to turn up the volume on the often highly unethical and sometimes deeply malicious tactics of the climate change disinformation campaign. We believe we need a new word for morally irresponsible behavior that attempts to undermine through disinformation political action needed in response to very threatening human activities. ... The world has lost over two decades in the fight to reduce the threat of climate change. We must insist on the highest standards for climate skepticism and strongly condemn malicious disinformation. -
Albatross at 03:06 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Cross-posted from another thread where World Climate Report (WCR) representative was trying to defend/justify them doctoring the Gillett et al. graph: "And if anyone had any doubts that this is an isolated incident by WCR (i.e., Michaels) they would be wrong, and it is not limited to doctoring graphs, but also ignoring or amending text from papers that does not support their narrative. Here DeepClimate shows how Michaels and Knappenberger misrepresented the work of Easterling and Wehner (2009) and Solomon et al. (2010) in a post titled "Michaels and Knappenberger’s World Climate Report: “No warming whatsoever over the past decade". There is a very clear pattern of deliberate attempts to mislead and misinform by the WCR. well, either "deliberate" or they have no clue how to properly undertake science and report on science." -
Bob Lacatena at 03:04 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate, FYI, there is no CO2 bandwagon, and your portrayal of any science in such a manner is an affront to scientists. As a science teacher, you owe it to everyone and your students in particular to do a heck of a lot better than that. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:02 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate, The nice thing about science is that it is forward looking. It's not based purely on what has already happened and bemoaning our misfortune, but in anticipating the consequences of our actions (or inaction) so that we can avoid horrific mistakes. Along those lines the Scientific American article that you reference also includes the following very important caveat:Over time, they say, the effect of CO2 from human activities could begin to dwarf the contribution from decaying plankton. If the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hits 560 parts per million (ppm), it could account for 49 to 82 percent of the pH drop at that point in time.
In light of this your final statement about the behavior of the Center for Biological Diversity is entirely wrong, as well as being a clear violation of this site's Comments Policy. -
Albatross at 03:01 AM on 17 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Cynicus @2, Michael's attempt to misled Congress (not for the first time as noted in the main post) was not only wrong as Ben Santer correctly noted it was also disingenuous (because we know Michaels knows better, either that or he is ignorant of the climate science). That Michaels was wrong has recently been reaffirmed by by Huber and Knutti (2011). They find: "Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (+/- 12%, 1 sigma) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (+/- 12%) by unforced internal variability." Michaels could only create his illusion by excluding error bars and by ignoring the cooling affect of sulphates. Should you or I trust him or the World Climate Report that Michaels runs? The evidence strongly suggests no, we should not, nor should we trust people or groups who uncritically trumpet his ideological propaganda. -
John Hartz at 02:45 AM on 17 January 2012Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
Zachary Shahan at PlanetSave re-posted Dana's article with the following introduction:
Last week, I reposted a summary of a study on human versus natural causes of global warming from Skeptical Science. The study showed quite strongly that humans are causing, by far, the most greenhouse gas emissions. Above is a graph from that.
Now, Skeptical Science has posted another summary of another study on this matter — human versus natural causes of global warming. This summary is on a new paper just published in 2012.From Planetsave (share this quote)
-
Tom Curtis at 02:03 AM on 17 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP @32, the section that Hayhoe quoted (well, cited actually) in the ECI manifesto was:"34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”"
The bit regarding which you bore false witness about her has been placed in bold. False witness twice over, in fact. Once in saying she left it out, and a second time in saying more-over that she was cherry picking by leaving it out. I will not chop logic with you about the interpretation of the Bible, for you have just made it manifest that you read your ideology into the Bible rather than seeking guidance from the Bible. (Anyone interested can look up Exodus 19 and you will see that it contains not one word about it being necessary to love God in order to love humans. That is an "interpretation" which consists of devising a theology, then finding texts to hang it on. Particularly note worthy in this case in that it denies human experience and Biblical teaching to the contrary.) Finally, readers looking up Matthew 8:26 will find that TOP cannot distinguish between particular miracles and the normal causal laws that hold in the world. -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:43 AM on 17 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Rob, From Scientific American, July 13, 2010 (Lauren Morello) , an estimated 24 to 29% of the pH drop is from CO2 and the rest from nutrient runoff. She is referencing a research paper by Richard Feely of the University of Idaho(Feely et al, 2010) entitled "The combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing, and respiration on pH and carbonate saturation in an urbanized estuary" which can be found here. In a nutshell, the estuary has a massive land/water interface, with large inputs of freshwater (which itself has a lower pH than saltwater), sediments, organic matter, nutrients, and pollutants from many natural and urbanized landscapes. This contributes to phytoplankton blooms which when they die sink to the bottom and decompose. The decomposition (respiration) process causes a decrease in O2 leading to hypoxic conditions, and an increase in CO2 which contributes to lower pH. From the conclusion "Further study of ocean acidification in estuaries is thus warranted because natural factors including acidic river inputs and restricted circulation can predispose these ecologically and economically important habitats toward corrosive, hypoxic conditions, and anthropogenic stressors such as nutrient enrichment may compound them." The paper does include several references to climate change and CO2 and I am not attempting to overlook that aspect, but it is clear that in the author's opinion nutrient enrichment is the dominant factor in the issues facing the estuary. Unequivocally humans are having an impact on the health of the bay and it is a serious issue that must be addressed.However, to tie the troubles of Puget Sound to the anthropogenic CO2 bandwagon is disingenuous on the part of the Center for Biological Diversity.Response:[DB] Insinuations of ideology and impropriety struck out.
-
JMurphy at 23:57 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
John Hartz, your Huffington Post link doesn't work, perhaps because of a missing 'l' at the end. This one should work.Moderator Response: [JH] Link fixed. Thanks. -
cynicus at 23:48 PM on 16 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Good to see these 'issues' being called upon. I note the utter silence on the well-known self-prclaimed 'true skeptic' websites regarding this misrepresentation from Michaels and the WCR. How different then during uproar that followed af the Himalayan error in the IPCC AR4 WGII report was found. One cannot help wondering if this is really true skepticism or merely one-sided skepticism... Here's Ben Santer showing how Micheals misrepresents science during a congressional hearing. -
les at 21:09 PM on 16 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
1 - Bert. Not at all. Michaels is making an important point. Climate "skeptics" just can not make a case without distorting data. Any NGO, blog, commentator or presenter who uses this material is clearly and explicitly conceding that fact. As Mann recently point out"It's frustrating that to some extent all of that context had been lost and the result has been caricatured. Often the errors bars are stripped away, making it appear more definitive than it was ever intended."
-
alan_marshall at 20:41 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Fellow Sksers will know me as an occasional blog post author and an activist in the Australian political scene. As a pro-AGW evangelical Christian, I am a great admirer of Kathryn Hayhoe. I have also been active for over a decade in seeking to educate politically conservative Christians on the sound scientific and Biblical reasons for urgent action to mitigate climate change. If my agnostic friends on this site can allow me some freedom, may I put in a plug for an article I wrote for this demographic? Christians and the Environment – A Study Guide has received positive feedback from around the world, including in recent times from one John Cook. I am not seeking to promote my faith on a site dealing with science, but this tool may help readers keep their Christian friends out of the clutches of climate change deniers. -
John Mason at 19:07 PM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Hi William, Carbon dioxide fluctuations from glacials to interglacials were only in the range of ~180-280 ppm, with multiple sources available including, yes, methane oxidation. We'd be looking for something a lot bigger in the event of a multi-gigaton CH4 release. -
Carbon500 at 19:05 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Let's hope that the marine biologists have done their homework and eliminated other possibilities such as infections of various kinds and local pollution (search under DOAG: Oyster and Clam Diseases) before pinning the blame on CO2. This press release looks typically sensationalist. Ocean acidification? The IPCC (Climate Change 2007 p405) state that the pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean [-troll comment snipped-] so I'd like to know about the pH range in the environment of the aquatic life under discussion. I'd also be interested to know more about the physiology of the fish concerned, and what pH range they are able tolerate.Moderator Response: [Rob P] - no more nonsense about the technical definition of acidification. It is considered trolling here - for good reason. See SkS series "OA not OK" on left-hand side of the page. -
adelady at 18:14 PM on 16 January 2012Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick
JoeTS "Today solar and other technologies cost much more than fossil alternatives..." Depends where you are what the costs are. Germany managed to instal - in December - almost twice as much as the USA did for the whole of 2011. And they did it at half the cost. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/10/401882/germany-installed-2-gw-of-solar-pv-in-the-month-of-december/ But even in the US, it's expected that both solar and wind will match or be cheaper than conventional power generation around 2015. Certainly by 2020. -
prokaryotes at 18:03 PM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Semiletov 2012 On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system -
prokaryotes at 17:48 PM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
1 Gt of methane in the Arctic? What would be the impact of such a release? -
Daniel Livingston at 17:18 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP (@ 33): All great verses! I resonate with the biblical passages that are important to you, too. There is a certain line of reasoning that I find present commonly among my fellow Christians for which I find no sound basis in our sacred text (the Bible). Indeed it seems back-to-front, and based on at least one false premise. In my observation, it goes like this: * My economic/religious values are at odds with environmentalism but supportive of minimal government, personal freedoms, etc * Therefore scientific observations of AGW are more likely to be extremely uncertain or even a hoax and/or anti-Christian because common policy prescriptions clash with my values * Therefore the Bible cannot be correctly interpreted to support any observation of AGW or prescription for responding to it. As a fellow Christian, I am glad there are people like Katharine Hayhoe who communicate that the Bible supports placing a higher value on conserving our planet than on unrestrained pursuit of profit / economic growth. Most Christians would probably agree that the highest biblical value is placed on saving people - above the natural world or wealth. The question is simply how best to go about that; and whether to put the natural world or economics next in our hierarchy of values. It would be interesting to calculate the ecological footprint of Jesus, who owned and earned nothing to speak of (in an economic sense). His statements and lifestlye concerning wealth accumulation suggest values far more aligned with placing economic interests last on any values hierarchy. -
Rob Painting at 16:49 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Based on Le Quéré (2009) - just over 23 million tons of CO2 are absorbed by the oceans every day. -
Rob Painting at 16:27 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate - The figure of around a million tons of CO2, per hour, being absorbed by the ocean comes from one of Corinne Le Quere's papers IIRC. See if I can track it down. -
TOP at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
daniel1
"That is, follow the Golden Rule, and you're following all of the Bible." Compare that to James 2:10 Even what you quoted about the Golden Rule doesn't quite fit AGW because the Golden Rule has to do with clearly identifiable actions that have clearly identifiable and certain consequences. Romans 13:8,9 & 10, but especially v9. In context Romans 13 comes after Romans 1-12 which are heavily involved in theology without much application. The application follows from the theology. Although the predicted consequences of GW may be serious they are speculative as is clear in the language of the ECI manifesto. And yes, Revelation 11:8 could refer to the things you mention. It could also refer to all out nuclear war or some other yet to be devised action of man. And in keeping with the verses that Tom Curtis quoted how about Revelation 14:7? I am of the opinion that anything man touches without God being involved is going to end up a mess. And just for the record, I am not arguing against the Golden Rule as presented in the Bible, only for the correct interpretation and application thereof. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Adrian Smits, this is an extremely inappropriate comment. Any change of pH toward a lower value constitutes acidification, regardless of what the original pH is. Just as well, a change in the other direction would be alkalinization, once again regardless of the original pH. I have seen this argument before and it could be summed up as the most stupid piece of nonsense ever uttered to make a consequence of CO2 release in the atmosphere seem innocuous through use of words. Seriously, you shouldn't go there. -
Rob Painting at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate - the acidification of the ocean right along the North American Pacific coast will be discussed in detail in an upcoming post. But that will be a couple of weeks away. You're right about being short on information - but the point of this re- post was to highlight the fact that the authorities had to be dragged along to court to acknowledge the problem. Oyster larvae started dissolving and dying 6 years ago from corrosive seawater.upwelling into the sound, and so far their response has been the all too familiar "heads in the sand' approach. Quite ironically part of the problem is intensified seasonal upwelling along the coast due to global warming. The strengthening winds lead to greater upwelling of corrosive deep water. This will be moderated depending on what phase the PDO (Pacific Decadal Osciallation) is in, but the source of the upwelling is water that was last at the surface around 40 years ago. In other words it will, most likely, progressively worsen. -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:33 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Rob, Is there more to this than the press release? The article and the link are short on information. Also, is there any documentation to the last first sentence of the last paragraph? -
TOP at 15:33 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@Tom Curtis
The shamah (Deut 6:5) is part of what Jesus said. And Hayhoe didn't quote it, just the second part. You have clearly put you finger on the problem. Cherry picking. You can't have one love without the other. And as you point out by quoting that, the first most important law is to love God. You can't love your neighbor without loving God. Look at Exodus 19:1-17 which covers the same ground in more detail. And it is impossible to do so. Tom, both you and amhartley are cherry picking. Why don't you put together a biblical doctrine of weather? It is a frequent theme in the Bible. Then you will really know what I am alluding to. For starters have a look at Matthew 8:27, Matthew 14:26 bearing in mind Matthew 8:26. Hayhoe sort of missed that too. It creates havoc with the first claims in the ECI manifesto for an evangelical. ex cathera??? It's a subject I have a degree in. Ps 119:11 -
Daniel Livingston at 15:10 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
To add to Tom's comment @ 23 in response to TOP @ 18. Three of the eight Bible passages referenced in the ECI statement are "Golden Rule" passages. Interestingly, both Jesus and Paul BOTH say that the Golden Rule (to love your neighbour as yourself / do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the essence of the Bible. That is, follow the Golden Rule, and you're following all of the Bible. Jesus says just that in Matt 7:12 and Matt 22:37-40 (both already referenced). His words about the Golden Rule in those passages: "for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (one of which was the Golden Rule). Just in case there was any doubt as to the underlying theme of the Bible, Paul confirms what Jesus said (in the above passages) in Galatians 5:14: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" The other passages in the ECI statement seem relevant and well-chosen to me. @ Estiben (21): "3. There was no measurable AGW when the Bible was written, so one wouldn't expect statements on it." Interestingly, there are statements in the Bible (albeit relatively obscure compared to those used in ECI) that suggest prescience of humankind's potential to destructively alter the physical planet on a scale only possible in modern times. Consider: “... will destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18). The context and language suggest that "destroy" (in both instances) is physical, extensive and far into the future from the time of writing (2000 years ago). It's hard to think of a better fit than AGW, although other pullution / resource depletion (i.e., environmental) issues could also easily fit the text.
Prev 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 Next
