Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 Next
Comments 66651 to 66700:
-
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. -
John Hartz at 14:46 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Suggested reading: “Canadian climate scientist finds fame, hate mail in U.S.”, Toronto Globe & Mail, Jan 10, 2011 Click here to access. -
lloyd at 14:34 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I also hope Dr. Hayhoe continues to speak the truth about climate change. As an evangelical christian I share her concerns and try to pass on what I know about climate to others who are willing to listen. Because I believe the facts of climate change and the dire consequences we face under a BAU pathway I have done everything I can to prepare myself to teach science to middle school students with climate change being one piece of that preparation. I know my students need every opportunity to personally practice measuring climate change and sharing what they find out with others to make informed choices. Perhaps if we invited people to share their knowledge and experiences they would be more willing to listen and make better choices? I certainly hope that will be the case with my students. Here in the Midwest USA people respond favorably to change when it is in their best interest to do so or they perceive their actions as helping their neighbors. After the 1993 Mississippi River flood wiped the town of Valmeyer Illinois off the map the town had to decide where to rebuild, the floodplain or the nearby bluff. One of the facts they had to take into consideration was the possibility of a worse scenario brought on by a warmer climate. Eventually, the town as a whole decided to stay together and move to the bluff. One of the reasons given was that, "It was best for us and our neighbors". Perhaps we should encourage decision makers to recast economic changes related to a warming climate as a help thy neighbor choice? -
John Hartz at 14:18 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Suggested reading: "Climate Deniers Hit New Low With Vicious Attacks on Scientists" The Huffington Post, Jan 15, 2011 Click here to access. -
colinc at 14:15 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
@#1[JH]... You're quite welcome. As you (and others) may note, I, too, possess the fat-finger-feature! :D -
prokaryotes at 14:10 PM on 16 January 2012Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
Are there any web widgets to transport climate change science? -
Chris G at 14:03 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Tom C, I was thinking along the same lines; a Christian should be bound to not harming their neighbor. I think that is what drives some people a little nutty. The facts are that we have all been culpable (well, most of us anyway). We can accept that, or we can choose to believe that either nothing bad will happen, or, at least, we are not responsible for it. How many people can ask themselves "How many people will die as a result of my actions?" and be expected to give a truly rational answer, even to themselves? In general, I find that it's best to put aside any feelings of guilt or blame that anyone has, and decide how to move forward from there. Tom S, Yes, acting out of fear. Switching to psychology rather than theology, fear and denial often go hand it hand. -
JoeTheScientist at 14:00 PM on 16 January 2012Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick
Bernard J - It's impossible to project meaningfully into the 22nd century. So much of the GW and SLR projections depend on 1. Population growth 2. Economic growth, and with it- energy growth 3. Shift to more GHG-intense fuels - peak oil, leading to more coal use and greater emission intensity Nobody can really predict where these drivers will go, and so the IPCC forecasts a range of possible scenarios. We have to know where these go in the 21st century before we can speak meaningfully of the 22nd. Right now there's an enormous amount of research in alternative energies. Today solar and other technologies cost much more than fossil alternatives, but in 15-30 years green technologies may wind up being cheaper, making them no-brainers to adopt. Just think of what happened with personal computers in 40 years! Unlike the 70s, when energy research was driven by fake scarcity created by OPEC, this time the scarcity is for real. This time the research won't just fade away. -
amhartley at 13:54 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP, I suggest you review the following: Gen 2:15 on man’s / woman’s original purpose in the earth Isaiah 58:6 on “true fasting” Jeremiah 22:16 on “what it means to know” God Mt 25 on how to treat the Lord James 1 on “pure” or “true religion” Based on these passages, it seems to me that—if AGW is real—those Christians "from the liberal side," orthodox or not, have a pretty good handle on what God wants. -
jmsully at 13:52 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Also in the second paragraph "torrent of hate" sounds like John Cook generated it. After reading the post, it is clear he didn't.Moderator Response: [JH] Fixed. Thanks. -
JoeTheScientist at 13:48 PM on 16 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
Martin - Perhaps nobody understands it. Climate change computer models are much better at projecting temperature than they are precipitation. (Rather like the 10-day weather forecasts. Temperature predictions tend to be more accurate than rain, which is pretty useless more than a few days out, even though they still make the 10-day forecast.) -
Colin at 13:46 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
John Hartz at 13:00 PM on 16 January, 2012 Colin: The Climate Change section of the Environment Canada website contains information about the costs of potential action steps for reducing GHGs emitted by Canadians. Thank you John. I'll spend time there and see if I can find the answers. Perhaps the info is all out there and I've simply failed to find it. As an aside, I'll try to improve my own communication skills. Thank you all. -
Tom Smerling at 13:34 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Though written for Christian audiences, Katharine's book, ,A Climate for Change is a model of clarity, simplicity and accuracy for any audience. Similarly, her slideshow for Republicans for Environmental Protection, "A Climate for Change: What is happening to our world, and what can we do about it?" has some of the clearest slides found anywhere, because they strip away all the clutter to reveal one key point. It is difficult to imagine how anybody with the slightest familiarity with Katharine's work or videos could possibly be so filled with hatred. She nails it when she says that those who heap scorn on climate science are acting out of fear, and "God is not the author of fear." -
JoeTheScientist at 13:33 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Of course she was beset with hatred. That's because it's not about facts or science. It's about ideology, and she betrayed some evangelical folks who see themselves as the true representatives of "the faith". -
colinc at 13:27 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Not to be "picky," but perhaps a more appropriate term about the middles of the 2nd paragraph would be "solidarity." Feel free to omit/delete this remark from "publishing."Moderator Response: [JH] Typo fixed. Thank you. -
John Hartz at 13:00 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin: The Climate Change section of the Environment Canada website contains information about the costs of potential action steps for reducing GHGs emitted by Canadians. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:52 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ Colin Thank you for sharing your opinion, Colin. But as you admit & the others have already pointed out, it is one lacking in substance and foundation. To aver that there are "sides" in the rational science vs the fake-skeptic "debate" is to lend a false equivalency where there is none. One "side" has science, the scientific method, robust theory and centuries of supportive physics and empirical evidence. The other "side" has just the opposite. You then pile-on to that foundationless gimcrackery with (what amounts to) substanceless tone-trolling (in that you very likely have not read beyond the names of the series in question to the posts themselves). The website is for those seeking to understand what the actual science has to say vs what the fake-skeptics would like for you to believe. There is much for you to learn here, should your mind not already be closed to learning. -
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I find TOP's (@ 18) claim that "The use of the Bible in the ECI manifesto is "cherry picking"..." intriguing. The most prominent use of the Bible in that manifesto is to assert that Christian's have an obligation to "love their neighbour as themselves". The clear ethical consequence of "loving your neighbour as yourself" is that harm to your neighbours should figure as prominently, and with the same weight in your considerations, as harm to yourself; and that benefit to yourself should figure no more prominently, and with no more weight than benefit to others. This most onerous, and consequently most ignored, of Jesus teaching is recounted by Matthew as follows:“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
As Luke's account makes clear, in Jesus' view your neighbour is anybody on whom your actions can have an impact, regardless of traditions of animisoty (if any), and regardlessof the existence of any prior personal relationship. In a world of global consequences, this means that for a Christian their "neighbour" is everyone in the world. Of this centrality of love, as Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats makes clear, failure to satisfy the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself is equivalent to failing to love Jesus himself. John makes it clear that if you do not love your neighbour, you do not love God. And Paul makes it clear love is the most central aspect of Christian teaching. I could go on, but I believe that I have established the point. TOP's claim that the use of this passage is "cherry picking" is flat out false. So false, in fact, that nobody who has read and understood the Bible could honestly make it. Of course, most evangelical Christian's do ignore this passage for all intents and purposes. When they read Jesus' primary exposition of what it would actually mean to follow this central command, they say its all figurative, because they certainly recognize that it is onerous. Indeed, what is noteworthy about TOP's claim of cherry picking is backed by nothing but his own word. Apparently, it is a key part of TOP's theology that when TOP speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. -
Colin at 12:24 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin #116: This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? I wasn't suggesting an alternative... I think the rest of the quoted post explains my point. -
Colin at 12:14 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. I'm sorry you found my statement offensive. However, I don't think it's fair to summarily state that it is false. I made the statement from my own perspective as a non-scientific person. I was approaching the subject of "...obstacle to action..." from the perspective of someone who agrees with the need for action. I sincerely believe that more needs to be done to communicate the true cost of co2 reduction. Right now, that void is serving well the forces who oppose action by allowing them to make whatever outlandish claims they like to bolster their status-quo position. Our own federal environment minister recently stated that for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets in 2012, it would require removing every motor vehicle from the roads. That doesn't sound like a reasonable statement to me... but I don't have the facts to know. You can bet that a lot of people read that statement and without contradictory evidence were thankful we withdrew from Kyoto. -
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin #116:This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view.
Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? -
JosHagelaars at 11:27 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@muoncounter #14 "The Dutch are hardly standing still on climate change" The Washington Post has beautiful photographs of some places of my country, but I don't know where the phrase "spending billions of euros on floating communities" is based upon. I couldn't trace any data in Holland, but I'm quite sure it is not true. People who like to live in the neighborhood of water can built such houses on their own expense and only when it is allowed by regulations. The last sentence of your quote seems correct to me. In the 90's we had some threats of flooding in the Netherlands caused by high water levels of our rivers, like the Rhine. The government decided to deal with this and with future estimates of even higher amounts of water being transported by the rivers because of climate change. Part of the measures taken is directed at improving the riverdikes and another part is directed to give more room to the rivers when necessary. Maybe the "billions of euros" are related to this protection program, I checked the budget for this project (it is public) and it is estimated to be 2.2 billion euros. -
Riccardo at 10:43 AM on 16 January 20129 Months After McLean
12 months after McLean:
credit: Hot Topic
-
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. Now you may lack the background knowledge to distinguish between science and pseudo-science (the fake-skeptics), but that lack of information does not make the two sides equivalent. I hope you see the logic here. 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that global warming is real, based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence, and only 1% disagree. That should tell you something, even if you cannot distinguish between climate science and climate quackery. -
michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin, A quick check with the search function at the top of the page gave this article on Skeptical Science about costs. Perhaps if you read the article there it will answer your questions. If not, it is a better place to ask the questions you have. The short answer is that economic studies show it is much cheaper to reduce CO2 than to deal with the problems afterward. It is also much cheaper the sooner you start to reduce CO2.
Prev 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 Next
