Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 Next
Comments 113651 to 113700:
-
andrewcodd at 19:10 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
The fundamentalist comments seem to be from aetheists. We should all be greatful for whatever motivates individuals to become better people be that books like the bible, children or peyote. Extreme aetheism seems to lend itself to hedonism and irresponsable consumption. Not to say aetheists go knocking other people hats off for fun but social darwinism means that we look after our own above all. Beleif systems are tools we have evolved to help us extend the network of who we consider our own. I am agnostic and whatever I choose to beleive has no bearing on how it is I have come to be conscious. No aetheist or religion I have ever encountered can explain consiousness. Deep down its selfless individuals like John that keep me topped up with inspiration to do the right thing on a daily basis. Most sincerly I wish you all the best John. -
adelady at 18:59 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
The Ville. "some people are going to have to suffer"? People are already suffering. Needlessly, which is the thing that breaks my heart. I do not see exactly what people in OECD countries will have to do without. Many people don't like change, but that's too bad because there is always change. Getting power from a solar/tidal/geo/wind source is still getting power. Better public transport run by that same power source is still better public transport. More efficient cars and trucks are better cars and trucks. My great regret is that the distortion of development of power technologies means that the poverty stricken regions of the world didn't have access 30 years ago to local power generated by wind or solar. It wouldn't have been wonderful by our standards, but it would have made an enormous difference to people who still have nothing. -
Paul D at 18:57 PM on 3 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
It will take me some time for me to read all your post Doug. London is the iconic city in the UK that will be troubled by sea levels in the future, but it won't be the only place. There are many UK cities that will be struggling. Portsmouth for instance is on an island and will probably be impossible to defend, whilst Southampton is on an estuary and could be defended, at least to some extent like London. How many billions will it cost? -
HumanityRules at 18:53 PM on 3 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
I realise this is a right wing think tank but they raise a good point, it was the first thing I thought when you graphed the historical record for the London Thames Barrier. What if the rules have changed for closing the barrier? It appears they may have. CSSP It looks like they lifted the second quote (and much of the info) from here. -
adelady at 18:46 PM on 3 August 2010On Consensus
Erik, you beat me to it. " A good model would define a function that twenty years into the future that would contain all the variables needed to make the prediction." Why do we need models this good anyway? Governments constantly make decisions and major investments on models from economists, transport analysts and dozens of others. How often do any of them produce anything as good as Hansen? -
Paul D at 18:44 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Ha, I was reading through all the comments here with optimism then came to number 39 and Argus, who seems on the surface to be confused. My interest in science is due to the fact that I want to know how things work. I guess it is an engineers view but it is also one that is fascinating and empowers the mind. I think the fact that climate science is linked to quantum physics and other sciences makes it compelling. You only have to spend some time contemplating the nature of matter and the forces that bind it and then quickly look at the objects around, to see the beauty of science and the world around. Out of the strange alleged chaos of the atom and particles, comes the greenhouse effect, cars and computers. But for me it isn't strange or chaotic, it does make sense. On the issue of this left/right thing. I think most politics of the old variety focuses to much on satisfying human needs and that conflicts with the observation that humans are causing the problems we have, be it climate change specifically or other environmental problems. The difficult thing is and will be to say to people that they need to do without. I don't think any socialist or capitalist has the guts to say that. So although I think 'social justice' is noble and it helps today's populations I think ultimately socialists are going to have to accept that to solve the problems, some people are going to have to suffer. I think it is to late now to protect jobs or wealth because of 'rights'. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:33 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
God is love, love to spare, love enough to care for others. Is that sufficiently vague as to be nonthreatening to everybody? I took a moment to look at the scriptural citations John mentioned. I don't think it takes a genius to get the point. -
Argus at 18:09 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
If there is a Christian God, who is both benevolent and omnipotent, we should stop worrying about the climate altogether. He can certainly fix the climate if we mess it up a little, and if he really is good, he will do so before anything serious happens. Thus we can continue to live on earth in peace and happiness, burning oil and coal that was given to us to burn. -
Erik J Smith at 18:07 PM on 3 August 2010On Consensus
nhthinker, How about this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ "The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!" -
JMurphy at 17:39 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
Poptech asserted : "JMurphy, I have no idea why you keep repeating the same lie about authors protesting the list, as no author has protested the list." It's a shame that these have to be produced yet again : A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does. Roger Pielke Jr There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. If they sopport _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" Roger Pielke Jr Re: The 450 papers list I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming. Harold Brooks But we all know the drill now : Poptech knows better than the original authors. Round and round and round...ad nauseum. -
macoles at 16:55 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Belief affords us all manner of ideology and it allows us to act as we see fit without having to scrutinise every last detail ourselves. Of course it has value to society! How many people would be advocates of AGW if it was a prerequisite to learn all that there is about climate science? Thankfully belief has its place alongside science, without it many would not act at all. Belief is a placeholder for both what science cannot explain, and for what science can explain - but is difficult to understand. Others will argue that belief offers even more, but that is OT... -
gpwayne at 16:28 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Hi John, I was surprised by your remarks about faith, but I do find your views reflect the best of Christianity and what I've always thought it was about - right thoughts, right actions, care for others - differentiated responsibility, as I would name it. The hard question - that others have tacitly raised - is how one fits a religious (belief) based world view with a scientific one, and I wrote an essay about this a while back. My main thought was that we need mystery as well as the hard bright light of science:"At the heart of belief lies mystery; that which our consciousness requires faith to address because all other methods are inadequate. Science would, if it could, eliminate all mystery from our existence, because to do so would not only be the attainment of science's ultimate goal – the theory of everything – but also invalidate belief and faith as tools (which science despises), in favour of hypotheses and rigorous proofs (which science adores). A mystery, tacitly left unsolved, is not seen as an asset to the human condition, but a weakness of mind, a vacuity of intellect or a failure of method. The unknown has no intrinsic value to science; it is merely that for which the appropriate mathematics has not yet been formulated. It is therefore all the more interesting to me that the place where science gets in trouble is the very same junction of the known and unknown that humans find so provocative, and from which we are rewarded so generously – and mysteriously – from time to time...I speak of the small epiphanies, the wonder of it all."
A Mysterious Reduction Small epiphanies - the title of the book in which this essay appeared, and also of my blog, where the essays can be downloaded (free). The balance between the mystery of being aware and the sensible deployment of the rational tools that awareness affords us is one of the most interesting and challenging subjects I write about. -
Ferran P. Vilar at 16:22 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Dear John, As you know, I blog in Spanish exactly for the same reasons. Well, just a (little?) difference. I’m an agnostic, but I’m proud to hold deep ethical values and I’m happy to know that I’m embracing Matthew 25 as you and many readers of your blog are. I discovered the seriousness of the climate change issue almost by chance in 2005. It was in the USA, when I was there in ‘technical’ vacation with my daughter, then 12 years old. I could not conceive to keep my job and do nothing for the world I was leaving to her. Then I saw the deep injustice for the poor people of the world to be directly harnessed by our daily ‘normal’ actions. I was frustrated to see people acting the same way as if nothing was happening, and being really influenced by the denial machine. I felt the instinct to investigate and make it public in Spanish language, where nobody was doing anything at the time. Somebody helped me: I was fired from my job (publisher of an automatic control business magazine) when I wrote an editorial on global warming and the responsibility of the engineering community to deal with. And finally, being trained in system dynamics (I’m an electronic engineer), I understood what the destabilization of the climate system could mean: runaway, a different planet, much less comfortable. Lovelock foresees some 1 billion people leaving at the poles by 2100. How do you reduce 8 billion people in 100 years? I still wonder why the climate system is, with some exceptions, not studied from this point of view. It’s like an engineer analysing a structure by starting with the quantum mechanics equations of every particular material in a bridge. “That’s because climatologists are atmospheric physicists”, I’ve been told by a renowned British researcher. They don’t know control theory? What is the stability threshold of the climate system? Why anybody talks about it? Is it 2 degrees? No, I think it is too much. Do people understand what does it mean if we had already gone through? John, please be careful. I deeply resonate with your cartoon. I admire your productivity - mine was higher some months ago. Two couples left me because of what they consider an excessive involvement (with zero income), and “you’re not going to save the world”. None of them was the mother of my lovely daughter, but if yours is, remember that anything better for a child than to have both parents at home. But it would also be difficult to find anything better for all of us than your independent and clever blogging. -
muoncounter at 16:21 PM on 3 August 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
#41: "a doubling of CO2 would only cause 1.1-1.2C of warming," CO2 has been increasing at an average of approx 1.5 ppm/year for the last 50+ years. Keeping that constant you'd expect to double (say from 330ppm to 660ppm) in 220 years. Some people argue for locally higher rates of global temperature increase, but one figure you often see is 0.13C per decade. So 22 decades gets you 2.9C hotter. Unfortunately, the rate of CO2 increase is edging up towards 2ppm/yr. -
canbanjo at 16:16 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
Poptech you have already confirmed your list is not about quality. Its a numbers game. Very clever mind if what you seek is attention. -
apeescape at 16:09 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
miekol, if the composition of the molecules in the atmosphere is proportional to the effects of global warming, that means all molecules behave similarly. When I put a dash of salt (unlike dried basil) on my steak, it tastes so much better even though it's only 0.003% of the mass. @ 0.005%, maybe a tad salty :) I grew up in an a-political, a-religious environment, raised under immigrants; so the only real "value" that were installed in me, were to work hard and be nice to others. I'm also young, so I feel that I may take the fruits of intense capitalism too lightly. At the same time, I've been exposed to its side effects from childhood (mental health, environment). "Happiness" is only a saturating function wrt wealth, and a sustainable lifestyle is truly appealing (1 steak / yr not withstanding). Global warming is a top-dog issue, and it's very hard not to get involved with it. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:00 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
GC, it never fails to astound me how gullible those folks are. Perhaps they should spend a little less time backslapping and a little more reading papers, such as Doran's for instance. "76 self-selected" zooming round the world nearly at Big C, or at least as fast as the packets can be crammed through fiber and routers. Tsk-tsk. -
gallopingcamel at 15:45 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
Great work! At last you got WUWT to acknowledge your existence: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html -
Doug Bostrom at 15:45 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
Stylo, are you speaking of Doran? Would you mind rephrasing your objections from a survey methodology perspective? You can find Doran's paper here (full text pdf). -
barry1487 at 15:41 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
John Cook, thanks for the post. I have no religion, respect yours, and feel just the same way you do re social justice. Having no children, I sort of adopt everyone else's in my mind and I am concerned for what we leave the following generations. -
Stylo at 15:29 PM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
robhon #21:...the response rate of the questionaire would have no bearing on the poll results. The sample size is large enough...
It's not the sample size, but whether it is random. It is not random. Once the participants can decide who is qualified to answer, and the authors can decide which views are in and which are out, it becomes an merely exercise in propaganda. Anyhow, you burst your own bubble when you said that art quality can be objectively agreed upon by consensus. Maybe in Communist countries where a board of culture decides what's right; but not here in the West. -
James Wight at 15:26 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Interesting post. It prompts me to reflect on my own motivations. Like many other commenters, I’m an atheist, so it’s not religion that motivates me. And although I do have a political view on the issue, I wouldn’t exactly say that it’s what motivates me either. It’s more the other way round: I developed firmer political views from looking into the science. My main motivation is to counter denialism (or contrarianism, or whatever you want to call it). I’m against denialist movements of all stripes, and am incensed when I see anti-science and pseudoscience wielding so much influence in the world, especially on an issue as important as global warming. I think it is vital that the public, media, and politicians understand the issue so that policies can be based on evidence, not ideology. Also, I can’t help pointing out the obvious link between creationism (particularly young Earth creationism) and climate change denial. If you already believe that the scientific community can be so wrong, yet so certain, on one issue, it’s not too much of a stretch to extend that to others. And if you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then you’ve already discarded most of the paleoclimate record in one swoop! On a more optimistic note, I have to agree with Stephen Baines @30: “If this thread has done anything I think it highlights how people from a wide range of backgrounds can reach roughly the same conclusion simply through an honest effort at following the evidence.” This is how it should be. Science relies on empirical evidence and so should transcend ideological boundaries. Unfortunately that doesn’t always happen in the public sphere, but this site demonstrates that it can. I think this is largely thanks to John’s politically neutral, fact-based approach. -
chuckbot at 15:21 PM on 3 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Great post! My only question is about the technical details of assessing a confidence level for the presence of a warming trend- how is it done? I've googled a bit but everything I've found is a bit opaque. I imagine it goes something like this: a set of data {(x1, y1), (x2, y2), ... (xn, yn)} has a linear regression y = m*x + b. the 'range of the data' is Dx = xn - x1. the 'spread of the model' is calculated Dy = m*Dx. Dy represents the amount of change in the regression over the sample range. Dy is compared to the standard deviation of the data, std(y1, y2... yn), to gauge the confidence level of the observed trend (for example, 2 standard deviations = 95% confidence). Am I on the right track? -
adelady at 15:19 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
@HR "humanist, left-wing with a strong sense of social justice" Amazing. Almost a match for me, but I'm atheist rather than anti-religious. I half get it when I see union officials with an obvious commitment to social justice - for their members - arguing for certain industries or practices to continue despite being socially destructive. But a general commitment to social justice takes me to John's view. That we have to look out for the poor, weak and vulnerable, whether we're likely ever to know them or not. As Stephen said, presuming you can predict another's position on the science by labels like left, right, religious or anything else is futile. I suppose anyone can have a general distrust of academia regardless of political orientation. But this one perplexes me. -
frankride at 15:09 PM on 3 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Get educated. Educate yourself about global warming. The more facts that you have as to what mainstream science says about it, the more you can persuade others to make simple yet effective changes in daily behavior. Energy-saving techniques either are initially expensive (for example, solar power) or take extra time (for example, recycling), so many people need to be convinced that their efforts matter.[9] Always keep in mind that you are aiming to demonstrate the benefits of these activities and highlight how each person can play a vital role in helping to reduce global warming. Remember that "[c]ivil society does not respond at all well to moralistic scolding."[10] Use education to enlighten, not frighten. 2Vote and influence your government with telephone calls, e-mails, letters and meetings with those who represent you in government. Learn as much as possible about the policies that you advocate before doing so; solving one problem often creates others. For example, replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs has increased the hazard of mercury contamination in homes and landfills. Fluorescent light bulbs are still preferable to incandescent bulbs (see below), but one must be careful to recycle them and to not break them, releasing the mercury. The push to grow corn for ethanol has contributed to higher food prices while saving little energy, if any at all. http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/ -
Stephen Baines at 14:59 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
@ HR...You make my point perfectly! Simple stereotypes need not apply! One question...You refer to the politics of climate change. What about the science of climate change? Does your background affect your opinion about that? -
apeescape at 14:57 PM on 3 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Dikran @ 16, I think you meant 1 - beta is the power? I get about 80% power for 12~14 data points when 2009 is the latest year for GISS (albeit w/ a few caveats). fydijkstra @ 20, an n-1 polynomial can fit a dataset of n points, so R^2 is really not a valid measure of comparison in any situation. The adjusted-R^2 may be a little better. Also, your degrees of freedom goes down with increased predictors, which decrease power. IOW, if you pick a different range of dates (even w/ same sample size) to do the same analysis, your results won't be as robust. Babyak. (2004) What You See May Not Be What You Get: A Brief, Nontechnical Introduction to Overfitting in Regression-Type Models In general, I think it's very hard to extrapolate / predict a future without including at least some physical structure to the models. I've noticed most people who predict a near-future cooling go by purely statistical arguments or really broad-brush physical observations. The people who do predict significant warming are the attribution guys. -
Stephen Baines at 14:49 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
I was raised a Quaker, and though I can hardly be considered a practising one I still hold strongly to many of the values learned. One is that a person should bear witness honestly, openly and with humility. In the Quaker tradition this means one is compelled to accept what one observes about the world, because the world is the face of god. Another is that the scientific study creation is one of the highest spiritual callings. Many Friends go into science for this reason, and with the aim of helping others. Due to this background, I have always found the belief that a dichotomy exists between science and religion a bit mystifying. BTW...My wife is an absolute atheist. She was horrified when she first found out about my background...had to check with her mother that I wasn't some cultist wacko looking for a hitch on a UFO ! Luckily she didn't succumb to her worst fears and trusted her instincts. I think one of the most pernicious undercurrents of this climate debate is the notion that people take positions based solely on some underlying unspoken political agenda or affiliation to which they bend all facts. If this thread has done anything I think it highlights how people from a wide range of backgrounds can reach roughly the same conclusion simply through an honest effort at following the evidence. There's not much really linking us at all but the science and a concern for what it means for our families, friends and species. -
HumanityRules at 14:23 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Who knew you where a god botherer? I'd like to see the empirical evidence for that one ;) Firmly anti-religious, humanist, left-wing with a strong sense of social justice leads me to take the complete opposite position on the politics of climate change. It's funny world, but well worth exploring! -
Daniel Bailey at 14:21 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Re: johnd at 14:02 PM on 3 August, 2010 Look here for a more in-depth answer to your question re: CO2 vs water vapor. A short answer is that water vapor is for the most part confined to the lower troposphere, while CO2 (being a well-mixed greenhouse gas) extends all the way to the tropopause. The radiative physics of CO2 are what drives global warming and climate change. If you wish a more in-depth look into that, ask. Textbooks and website references abound beyond number. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 14:12 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Thanks, John, for sharing! A long-overdue topic. Like John, I obtain no material benefit from speaking out on what I know. My day job keeps me comfortably employed and sustains my family's needs. We're not rich by any means, but have what we need. I don't do this to pass the time. Indeed, I have to struggle constantly to create the time for this work. My job takes about 70 hours a week for 35 hours pay. Family and sleep fill the rest. So this mission comes at the expense of sleep. Neither do I do this for politics. I have mainly conservative values, but don't feel the overarching need to conform to conservative thinking when an "out of the box" solution is needed. Original thinking is called for when you get your cheese moved. So I have always valued platforms that mirror mine, politically. Sometimes, then, I have voted Democrat, sometimes Republican. While I'm all for saving as much as possible of the Great Outdoors for the enjoyment of future generations, people still have to live. And natural resource utilization, when done in a sustainable manner, is to be admired. And if push came to shove, then "drill, baby, drill". But the main reason I reach out like this is for my faith. Like John, I am a Christian (I did not know that about John when I began reading Skeptical Science; I just learned that fact about him today). Since I was a little boy, I've always loved science. By the age of 11, I had exhausted the children's science book section in the library. By 16, the adult science book section. In college, I majored in Earth Science and Computerized Cartography/Remote Sensing in the early 80's. My strong interest in Climatology changed course when my science advisor told me that: 1. It was a dead-end field (daunting, but not the last straw) 2. Therefore there was no money in it (the last straw; a man's gotta eat) After many years of working for the Department of Defense in Washington, D.C. making mapping products for the military, I tired of the summer heat & the rude people. Tossup which was worse. Returning home to Michigan, I got into sales and then into pharmaceutical sales. The endless studying of medical articles, journals and clinical studies in the various disease states renewed my interests in science and climatology, so I added that to my neverending medical studies. That was a real wakeup call. As I delved into the depths of the literature, a disturbing vista emerged from the new material the matured science had developed since I'd left it. Mankind, in its reaching for technology and the stars, had found that the world was hollow, and in touching the sky, had changed it. But it's one thing to have knowledge; the real test comes in it's application. For when I sit at home with my family and look into the eyes of my children, I see their chances at a happy and normal life diminishing in light of what lies before us. It would be easy to sit back and enjoy the time left to me. But to do so would be to consign my children and the future generations of mankind to a living hell. For the changes ahead, should our course not change, indeed lead down that path. So my faith and my conscience demand that I toil at long hours into the night, searching for a way forward. Science has communicated its consensus to the world on the changing climate, and the world has rejected it. The only answer I have at the moment lies in not giving up. My faith, and the haunting knowledge of what I know, demands no less. John Brookes @ 16 above referenced Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." An idle steward I will not be. Thanks for your time, The Yooper -
WAG at 14:03 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Great post. As a Christian myself, I've often wondered how so many of us can ignore the command to be stewards of God's earth. Every day in church, pastors tell us that nothing is our own, everything belongs to God... and then we go and muck it all up anyway. I wrote my senior thesis on how conservative Christians reconcile their Christianity with their politics, and the subject of the environment was one that came up over and over. People essentially say this: "We should care for the earth, but we're put here to work it and use its resources for our benefit, and rule over the earth. We should do it responsibly, but we shouldn't just let resources sit around and be idle." In other words, this issue is ripe for reframing and building religious support for stopping climate change. This is an issue of responsible stewardship of God's earth. You just have to emphasize the "responsibility" part of stewardship, not just the "uses the master's resources" part. (Unless you want to point out that opponents of cap-and-trade are preventing us from using our vast wind and solar resources). -
johnd at 14:02 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
miekol at 10:08 AM , firstly I want to thank John for sharing his thoughts with us, irrespective of where any of us stand on the issue of AGW, there is always more common ground than disputed when things are put into the right order of importance. Miekol, I too wonder about the tiny amount of CO2. In particular about how the AGW theory decrees that the amplifying effect of water vapour, in fact all forms of atmospheric H2O, means that the majority of heat should be trapped at H2O wavelengths, and the properties of H2O, the points at which it changes state, determining the range at which our climate oscillates over time.Moderator Response: The most recent discussion at Skeptical Science of water vapor's role in global warming may be found here: Evaporating the water vapor argument. An older discussion is here. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:49 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
It's arguable that pragmatically speaking the Golden Rule transcends whatever may divide us in terms of spiritual or religious feelings. In general we prefer to be treated well to the extent we help to make that possible and should extend the same consideration to others as much as we can. For my part, either my spirituality genes don't function or I was not inculcated with religion or I'm a godless heathen/infidel/whatever and am consigned to a lake of fire or something like that but I still don't believe in creating an Unholy Mess and leaving it for others to deal with, at least to the best of my ability to avoid doing so. Can we agree on the Golden Rule as it pertains to the subject of this blog, or should we argue endlessly and pointlessly instead over whether we place our stock in heat death of the universe, heaven or something else? -
Bern at 13:26 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Regarding the comments about John's apparent faith / science conflict: My answer would be "why does there need to be a conflict?" Seriously. The only conflict science has is with the 'bedtime story' version of religion, where everything was magically made by a supreme being, in the form that it exists today. In my opinion, that's a seriously limiting approach to faith. Which God is more impressive to you? The one that can create a universe a few thousand years ago just as it is today? Or the one that can give the pre-big-bang universe a nudge in just the right way so that, 15 billion years later, it will give rise to intelligent life that can hold a conversation about the nature of God? It's been a long time since I've read Genesis, but I seem to recall there's some stuff in there about going out and learning about the world (actually, a quick Google reveals Genesis 2:19 "Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" - surely that's the beginning of taxonomy, a foundational part of the theory of evolution? ). To me, science (and learning about how the universe works) is a challenge put in front of us, that we may make use of our capacity for thought. Not a challenge to our beliefs. Religion is no house of cards to come tumbling down should one card be revealed to be have a picture of a Galapagos finch instead of a jack. So, to my mind, there's no reason for disconnect or conflict between science and religion. One is about what you know and can learn, the other about what you believe in. The problems arise when human-written expressions of those beliefs are taken to be literal truths. -
Uncle Pete at 13:07 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Probably this post will be considered OT but here goes nevertheless. We need god to explain the time before the big bang, and the space outside of the universe. PS Thanks for the great effort keeping this blog going. PPS @piloot Good to see the Dutch have finally woken from their slumber :)Response: As is my understanding, there is no time before the big bang and no space outside the universe - time and space require matter to exist. -
Todd F at 12:54 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Good work John. I feel similarly motivated. 10, 15, I think John's respect for science is evident throughout his posts, and I don't see that his faith compromises his respect for science, but rather that his faith motivates him to move from theory to practice. And I'll bite quickly on how can someone who respects science believe in God. Science deals exclusively with the study of nature, and I tend to think that the origins of nature itself is not a scientific question. Also, I would find it surprising if there was lots of devoted material on the subject in the peer review literature, or even if most scientists believed that the existence of God is a scientific question. There may be a [perhaps slight] majority of scientists who disbelieve in God, but I don't think this is the same as a scientific consensus, particularly if the subject is not a scientific one. I do think sound science has a role in influencing theology, and I don't think science and faith should be in opposition. I think the word 'supernatural' should be clarified. In some sense, I think distant universes with different laws of nature are in a sense supernatural. It also wouldn't be too hard to define the creator of the universe as being a natural mind. The idea that the origins of the universe are a product of intention, is one option to consider, and there are others as well. I think we all try to make the best sense of the universe we live in. I can't personally fathom how anything but nothingness exists (and yes that exclude God as well). However, nothingness doesn't seem to be an option I can sanely consider. -
MattJ at 12:37 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
jfrank, #12 These you mention who ignore the coming plight of the less fortunate are exactly those who will have to cry out to the mountains, "fall on us to hide us from the wrath of the Lamb". But they are so stubborn in their delusion, they just don't see it that way. Nor will they until it is too late for them and for us. -
Ian Forrester at 12:35 PM on 3 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Thanks John. -
chris1204 at 12:34 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
When I read this post John, my first reaction was, 'Why am I not surprised?' I don't always agree with you as you well know. However, I share your faith and appreciate your efforts to give it a living expression through your work on this blog. All of us of course fall short in all too many ways. God has given us the gift of life and the responsibility to care for one another through caring for our planet. Matthew 25 speaks very loudly to me - we chose this passage for my father's funeral last October. A nominal Catholic but for many years an atheist, he remained nevertheless a man of practical faith who had a deep love for nature. He cared for the environment though some of his solutions wouldn't have been to everyone's tastes on this blog - he firmly believed we needed to grasp the nettle and take the nuclear option. However we may view the climate change challenges ahead of us, we won't solve them without looking humbly to God for help and guidance. To do this, we all have to be prepared to put aside our pride admitting when we're wrong. -
macoles at 12:32 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Tom @15 Just because science can show that things can occur independently of God, doesn't actually disprove God. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of God, simply because God is not defined by what can be empirically observed. I choose to be an Atheist, not because of my understanding of science, but because I believe God is unnecessary. Arguments can be made either way, but there will never be proof. -
macoles at 12:00 PM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Thanks for sharing John, and for making me reconcider my opinion of Christians and climate change. As an Atheist it was easy to look around and notice what seemed a high correlation between those who believe in God and those who believe the Earth is unbreakable. The key issue is not belief, as we humans have a vast capacity to believe almost anything, but for us to strive for better scientific understanding - and to act on it! -
Ian Forrester at 11:53 AM on 3 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
I am the person whose personal information poptech posted on Greenfyre's blog. I was a bit miffed when John deleted a post of mine earlier in this thread responding to poptech's nonsense after what he had inflicted on me and my family. I can assure everyone that it is very unsettling to see your address, phone number, map and a photo of your house posted for any unhinged denier to observe. I hope you will allow this post John since it shows everyone what sort of a person he is.Response: For the record, it was one of the moderators that deleted that comment and I think perhaps the deletion was a little zealous - the reason given was you gave a strawman argument. Whether you did or not is immaterial, that's not covered in the Comments Policies. I've restored your comment. -
topquark at 11:51 AM on 3 August 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Excellent post, but I have one reservation. A skeptic could accept all of the above, but argue that a doubling of CO2 would only cause 1.1-1.2C of warming, which is the basic figure if you just consider the effect of the extra CO2 without any feedbacks. It's the feedbacks that magnify a merely worrying 1.1C rise to a possibly catastrophic 3C (with a considerable degree of uncertainty, admittedly). So I'd like to see more explanation about the evidence we have for positive feedbacks, which is discussed elsewhere on this site. -
John Brookes at 11:49 AM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Nice post. How does that quote go, "....is for good men to do nothing". Well, keep up the good work. -
Tom_the_Bomb at 11:46 AM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
How you can be so scientific, so aware of what the hard scientific research says, and still believe in God? I find that almost paradoxical. You always talk about empirical evidence; have you looked through the peer-reviewed literature and found empirical evidence for God, or Intelligent Design? There is a scientific consensus on these things aswell, you know. An as atheist I find it impossible to simultaneously hold reconcile science and religion in my mind; surely one would have to choose between one or the other.Response: Questions about the natural world, like what's causing climate change, are purely scientific questions and are answered by empirical evidence. Similarly, there are multiple lines of empirical evidence that the Earth is 4 billion years old and that humans evolved from lower lifeforms.
However my faith in God, that He created space and time, is, well, a leap of faith. For someone with a scientific background and skeptical by nature, I completely understand how difficult and unintuitive that leap is. -
adelady at 11:38 AM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Thank you for that. My children are almost twenty years older than yours. I'm looking at the prospect of grandchildren in the next few years - and the possibility that some of them might have grandchildren. In my family it's not uncommon to live 90+ years. When we talk about all these effects being a long time coming, it isn't so very long when we think that it will affect people you'd like to leave the family heirlooms to. One of the heirlooms could be a better, calmer world if we get our act together. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:34 AM on 3 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Miekol, the path of information leading to our recognition of the C02 problem is mostly not about anthropogenic warming at all, in fact AGW can fairly be described as a predictable outcome that's more or less incidental to a whole pile of other research. "There has to be some other cause..." for AGW is a bit like being the victim of a high fall and thinking to one's self on the way down, "It -can't- be gravity, there must be some other reason..." The various fundamental underpinnings of the conclusion were in place before we even knew we were falling. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:26 AM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
In fact, being professionals in the field they'll likely add about a dozen more to the list. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:25 AM on 3 August 2010Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
Poptech... Not at all! Go to any high end art gallery and put that list in front of them and see if they agree.
Prev 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 Next
