Arguments
Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Posted on 2 October 2014 by dana1981
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is a conservative evangelical Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to protecting the environment. The organization recently published a list of ten reasons it opposes policies to reduce carbon pollution and slow global warming, purportedly to protect the poor. As the first point on the list illustrates, the group essentially believes that the Earth’s climate will be able to correct any damage done by humans.
1. As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.
The group includes climate scientist Roy Spencer and professor of geography David Legates. Spencer’s research is among the 2–3% of peer-reviewed climate papers disputing that humans are the main cause of global warming. He has often argued that climate policies will harm the poor, and has not been shy in making political and free market statements, having gone as far as to make comments about “global warming Nazis.” Legates is known for disputing the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
The Cornwall Alliance has tried to use scientific arguments to support its religious beliefs about the resiliency of the global climate, claiming,
3. While human addition of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), to the atmosphere may slightly raise atmospheric temperatures, observational studies indicate that the climate system responds more in ways that suppress than in ways that amplify CO2’s effect on temperature, implying a relatively small and benign rather than large and dangerous warming effect.
By itself, a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise global surface temperatures by about 1.2°C. By claiming the climate suppresses more than it amplifies that warming, the group is arguing that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is less than 1.2°C.
To put that in perspective, ‘sceptics’ Nic Lewis and Judith Curry recently published a paper with one of the lowest best estimates for the Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, at 1.64°C global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their study only included some of the lowest estimates of ocean and surface temperatures, and hence likely underestimated the climate sensitivity, as climate scientist Kevin Trenberth explains,
Lewis and Curry not only low-balled their estimates of climate sensitivity by selective use of datasets but they also failed to take the other datasets into account in assigning error bars or uncertainties. They chose low values of temperature change without factoring in the biases of not adequately sampling the Arctic and the huge changes that have occurred there (see Cowtan and Way). They ignored many papers that document the best and most comprehensive estimates of changes in ocean heat storage such as those by Balmaseda et al (2013), Trenberth et al. (2014) and Chen and Tung (2014). There are a number of ocean heat content change estimates based on Argo data, but these miss many regions including the Indonesian region and Arctic, which contribute perhaps 30% of the total. The result is that the Lewis and Curry estimates are perhaps 50% too low, and their uncertainties are much too low.
Nevertheless, even the low-ball Lewis & Curry best estimate puts the climate at over 37% more sensitive to carbon pollution than the Cornwall Alliance believes.
The Cornwall Alliance’s policy positions are similarly misguided. On the issue of energy in developing countries, they argue,
To demand that they forgo the use of inexpensive fossil fuels and depend on expensive wind, solar, and other “Green” fuels to meet that need is to condemn them to more generations of poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
Much of my colleague John Abraham’s work involves the design and installation of clean and robust energy sources in remote parts of the world. Based on his firsthand experience, Abraham says the Cornwall Alliance has got it all wrong.
This statement is made by people without much experience in energy or in emerging economies. My own team has led multiple projects where we bring low-cost clean energy solution to very remote and impoverished areas of the globe. Not only can we deliver energy at a competitive (and sometimes lower) costs, but small-scale distributed energy systems such as wind and solar generation provide local control over distribution. What we find is that cleaning the environment also cleans the politics associated with energy.
Abraham also told me about the moral challenge surrounding this subject – poorer countries tend to be the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
In subsistence farming regions, people live and die by the weather and agriculture. I have seen firsthand how changes to climate are affecting real people and real communities. In the United States, it is an intellectual exercise to think about how the changing climate will affect our future economy and society. In Africa, South America, and Asia, this theoretical exercise is occurring in real time. Climate change costs are already occurring around the world, they impact the world’s poorest the most. Surely these social and economic costs should be part of our calculus as we think about solving this problem.
Top frame: national per capita carbon pollution emissions. Bottom frame: Vulnerability Index from Samson et al. (2011).
Many evangelical Christians recognize this moral angle of human-caused climate change, and also view the issue as one of stewardship of the Earth. For example, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian herself, and often speaks to like-minded groups. She recently did an interview with Bill Moyers that’s well worth watching. Hayhoe told me,
The foundation of the Christian faith is about loving others as Christ loved us, and it is clear from the work that I do myself as well as I see from other colleagues that those with the least resources to adapt to a changing climate will be most affected by our actions.
The National Association of Evangelicals has likewise acknowledged the reality of human-caused global warming and concluded,
Thanks for the good article. Unfortunately, the end is cut off.
When reading Genesis I don't see the terms:
"wise design"
"robust"
"resilient"
"self-regulating"
or "self-correcting" etc.
Such words are just the ideology of the people reading the texts being projected on to them.
They want to see in those texts anything that will confirm their ideology.
Also isn't verse 22 of chapter 8 contradicted in other later books of the bible?
As well as having been contradicted throughout history.
The link to the full Guardian post is missing.
Here's the link in the meantime for those that would like to follow through.
Citing the Book of Genesis for anything relating to science is pretty much an automatic disqualifier.
Great source of children's stories though.
I'm often amused by US evangelicals claiming climate change impacts are God's punishment for things like gay marriage laws etc. A rather more obvious sin with biblical retribution would that of greed. Doesnt seem to get a mention despite US energy consumption per capita being among the highest in the western world, around twice that of UK. Maybe Cornwall alliance folk should spend more time reading prophets and gospel than genesis?
OK, somebody has to be the snarky jerk, so I'll be it this time:
"Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds"
Minds?? Are you sure there are any in there?
OK, I'll drop the snark now. But really, these are people that mostly believe the earth is about 6000 years old. Where can you really start in trying to engage in discussion of a fundamentally scientific issue in the face of such utter rejection of basic scientific facts?
I am asking in earnest as someone trying to teach a class that includes a GW theme, but I have students in the class who are completely ready to reject all science because, to quote, "It says in the Bible that GW can't happen." I have directed them to Hayhoe, but I admit to be a bit at a loss even where to start with such utter rejection of essentially all science that doesn't conform to their very narrow (supposedly literal) interpretation of scripture. Any ideas would be most welcome.
For what it's worth, I happen to have recently finished a point by point review of the Cornwall Alliances "The Biblical Perspective of Environmental Stewardship: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors" - that some might find interesting.
Dana does SkS's CC Reposting policy remain in place?
I just posted this,
Dana at SkepticalScience.com reports on the Cornwall Alliance
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/10/dana-skepticalscience-cornwall-alliance.html
is it OK?
CC - that cornwall Alliance stuff is seriously scary. We share the planet with people who think like this? I would like to think most Christians would run screaming in the other direction from a travesty like this. Let's hope some real theologians go after them as well.
About Legates, I'd add that he was involved in having the Soon-Baliunas fiasco paper published. He later "published" a more tedious version in Energy and Environment, with the Idsos (speaks volumes).
I am a Christian, unconvinced of the global warming crisis. Blogs such as this one would fare better presenting real science and refuting politicians involvement rather than quoting Bible versus.
To the best of my knowledge Christians like clean air and water just like everybody else.
Paul, rapid climate change is only indirectly a "clean air and water" issue. I know at least 30 "Christians" among my extended friends and family who don't accept the diagnosis of a crisis. Not a one can explain what they claim isn't happening. Instead, they say things like "We're too insignificant" and "God wouldn't let this happen."
Out of curiosity, what are your reasons for remaining unconvinced?
@DSL
The issue has been hijacked by politics to further government power and control. Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true and facts like the global temps have not been warming are coming home to roost. Malighning peoples faith will get you nowhere fast. Settled science as it turns out may not be so settled after all.
Present to me the hard evidence and not some quack theory so researchers can obtain tax payer grants at will.
Focusing directly on peoples faith is not the same as presenting facts.
Paul: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true"
Do you have a source for such an outrageous claim? Model projections for Arctic sea ice loss have the current level of ice not occurring for another fifty years. That's right: models have severely underestimated ice loss. Land ice in Antarctica is in rapid decline. Antarctic sea ice is complicated: stable temps and warming Southern Ocean, but ice growth.
Paul: "facts like the global temps have not been warming are coming home to roost."
Pardon me? Where has global temp not been warming? The surface is certainly warming. The oceans are certainly warming. What temp measurement are you looking at? Or are you simply repeating what others have told you?
Paul: "Malighning peoples faith will get you nowhere fast."
True enough.
Paul: "Settled science as it turns out may not be so settled after all."
Do you accept the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Paul: "Present to me the hard evidence and not some quack theory so researchers can obtain tax payer grants at will."
Tell me what you want evidence for--precisely.
Focusing directly on peoples faith is not the same as presenting facts.
paul@14
"The issue has been hijacked by politics to further government power and control"
Surely that is a political or an ideological view?
If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.
I personally think that the science is correct and all political parties (in whatever country) have to fit CO2 reduction into their ideology and policy making. I am not interested in religion or political ideology when it comes to CO2 reduction and environmental matters.
The rest of your comment is either 'trolling' or misinformed.
Assuming it is misinformed then you need to read material on this web site, which ironically is what your original comment is about. So why aren't you reading?
paul@14: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true" So is that where you set the bar? If Arctic summer sea ice disappears you'll be convinced? Why are you not satisfied with the dramatic reductions in that ice of the last 30 years? I get it: you're suspicious. Permit me the same skepticism: I rather think that when (not if) the Arctic summer sea ice disappears, you'll have another hurdle all set up before you can possibly drop your objection.
paul@12 said "I am a Christian". So is the founder of this web site. A quote: "The second reason is my faith. I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25. I believe in a God who has a heart for the poor and expects Christians to feel the same way... the poorest, most vulnerable countries will be... those hardest hit... Drought will devastate low-latitude countries. Rising sea levels will create havoc on low lying countries..."
@DSL,
Since Im not a scientist heres a couple of links about the polar ice caps melting.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist.
no global warming for 18 years 1 month
The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/
Blogs like this one would establish credibility to openly disavow politicians like Al Gore. Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda.
It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe.
When your minds are already made up about Christians how can you present yourself in good faith?
As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't. What I know for sure is that the polar bears are doing just fine, the polar ice caps are doing just fine and last years winter was one of the coldest on record.
I think you guys need to rethink your approach to climate change. Theres been to many glitches along the way and blogs, such as Skeptical Science, never seem to root out the riff raff, such as Al Gore, among the rank and file. It is jaw dropping that he showed his face at the climate change march.
So, spare me the Psalm references and stick to science.
You fellas here probably dont appreciate the WUWT link so heres a direct link.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
[Rob P] - Linking to the popular anti-science site WUWT in support of a claim inevitably undermines the point you're trying to make.
93% of global warming goes into the ocean, 3% into warming the land, and 3% into melting ice. 99% of global warming has carried on without missing a beat. The animation below is based on a figure from the latest IPCC report.
What about the remaining 1% that is heating the atmosphere? It has certainly slowed down a lot compared to the previous two decades, but is still warming.
Thus the pause is nothing but an oft-repeated fantasy.
paul - Carl Mears from RSS states in the link you provide:
I don't think his article supports the doubt you seem to harbor, but simply to note that there are questions in measurement, in forcings, and internal variability (all part of recent science literature) which are entirely consistent with AGW.
Paul, you say "no warming" over the last 217 months. Show me. Don't link to somebody playing with Excel. Show me here (217-month trend = +0.09C per decade). And reply on the appropriate thread.
A question for you: when energy arrives from the sun, where is most of it stored? Answer on the appropriate thread.
Last year's winter was cold? Eh? Yah, maybe in the US, which makes up all of 1.6% of the Earth surface. Not cold globally. Not even close.
You demand unpoliticized science. You refuse to produce the science that forms the basis of your opinion. You refuse to recognize science when presented to you. This is clearly a case of hypocrisy.
As for Gore, I haven't seen or read An Inconvenient Truth. I actually haven't read or seen any book or film on climate change, other than Chasing Ice.
Paul, one more thought:
You admit to being unfamiliar with the science. Thus, you have no basis for determining the quality of claims that allege to be science-based. You are forced to trust someone else for your opinion. Why Watts? If not science, then what is the basis upon which you make a decision to trust this analysis or that analysis?
Paul,
I don't see how this post claims anything like what you say it does. It does not say Christians are by definition wrong. It says that some people who call themselves Christians are making factually wrong claims in the name of their religion.
Other people, who also call themselves Christian, believe their religion compells them to do otherwise with respect to climate change. Those people include the founder of this site, the prominent scientist quoted, and, frankly, a number of people I personally can claim as friends. Are you claiming they aren't Christians simply because of the accept the scientific consensus?
Other prominent scientists, like Alley and Emmanuel are republicans who would agree with your general concern about the size of government etc, but they also support the consensus on climate change. There are ooptions that require substantially less government meddling than others, which they would probably prefer. One can argue that wasting time dealing with the issue virtually guarantees that large scale government involvement will be required, so it isn't necessarily against conservative principles to accept climate change.
All of the factual scientific claims you have made are dealt with in the various posts on this site in depth and many times at several levels of expertise. None of them have anything to say about whether Christianity is "wrong" or "right." If you are interested in informing yourself, read them. If you are simply interested in maintaining the existence of some imagined batteline between science and religion, I would go elsewhere.
I don't believe paul appreciates the irony of admitting, essentially, to being incapable of fairly evaluating the science behind AGW ("Since I'm not a scientist") - and backing his claims up with references to WattsUpWithThat to boot! - while demanding that Skeptical Science present "real" science (to him, personally, no less) and "root out" such riff-raff as Al Gore - and all that despite having manifestly failed to show where SkS - or climate science generally -has fallen short in the "real" science department, or failed to show why Al Gore is "our" problem to "root out" (or, for that matter, what he has said about AGW that is actually incorrect).
I, however, do.
I also appreciate the irony that paul demands that SkS present "real" science, rather "than quoting Bible versus [sic]", even though the only reference to the Bible in the OP is contained in the quote from the Cornwall Alliance. (I make no claim about the version of this article up at The Guardian.)
Rob P (inline mod response @19): Will that animation be added to the Skeptical Science gallery? It's fantastic.
[Rob P] - It's from upcoming rebuttals of the so-called pause, which is otherwise known as in scientific circles as continued global warming. I may re-do it as that version is somewhat blurry.
Ok gentleman,
Im not ging to debate the flurry of relies. I can see your "all in" that the science is settled and you will gamely advocate for your beliefs. No problem there. Not really any problem anywhere 'cept maybe one or two derogatory comments but since I've been trounced with plenty on other sites already Im not thin skinned anymore.
At the top of the home page I appreciated the beginning disclosure. Discovering a web site thats forthright is always a treat. So a plus for the mod or web owner. Since the topic on this thread invovled Christians I popped in to get a feel for things. Its not me but I know some very cracker jack Christians. Learned men who are not convinced the science is settled. Anyway, I'll stop in once or twice a week just to nose around.
The Friday round up appeared to be more well rounded than when I check a few weeks ago. Back then I found some far left links like Thnk Progress etc... My 1st impression was more politics than science. Time will tell and didnt mean to get anyone in a twist.
All the best!
paul
Paul, no need to debate a flurry of replies. One at a time would be just fine. You can take it at a liesurely pace. Keep in mind, though, that the next time you post, if it's not in response to the questions raised about your current posts, it might get deleted.
DSL,
With uncertainty that would be 0.091 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ) which is not significantly different from zero.
[RH] Russ, this drive-by single comment posting has to stop. If you're going to put forth a position you're going to have to stick around to defend it or accept that you're wrong.
Russ R. - is it zero? Can you use the uncertainty to claim "no surface warming in 217 months" using a simple linear trend? No. The uncertainty range includes zero. It also includes 0.2C.
DSL,
Here. (217-month trend = +0.00C per decade). Is that zero?
RH.
I thought it would be best if I stick to presenting unadorned facts, and leave the commentary and arguments to others.
[Rob P] - What happens when one looks at the other global temperature data sets?
1. UAH - the other surface temperature series, aside from RSS, derived from measurements of the 'brightness' of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere:
2. Hadcrut4 surface temperature time series:
3. GISS global surface temperature.
4. And finally the RSS temperature time series, Russ R linked to:
One of these things is not like the others, and one of these these just doesn't belong (based on observations such as the increased frequency & severity of heat waves over the last decade). Can readers guess which one?
Actually, Rob, Russ is not wrong. He's not making a claim. That's seems to be his standard MO--insinuation.
[RH] Agreed. He's still going to have to contribute something or the drive-by posts are going to be treated the same as a "link only" post. We welcome RussR's contributions to a conversation, but it's not okay to post and run away from a conversation.
I use GISS because it gives better coverage of near surface temperature. Why use RSS TLT? After all, UAH and Had4 are also positive.
Russ's comments are equivalent to someone rolling a standard 6-sided die over and over, and then claiming all sides of the die are 6 because once in a while 12 comes up. It's a patently ridiculous argument and I'm guessing Russ knows it.
Russ R. - What's your null hypothesis if you are (as you imply) asserting that the trend has been zero? And is that null hypothesis rejected by the data? Remember that testing for significance is a one-sided test, and you need a null hypothesis.
Hint: 0.091 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ) fails to reject null hypotheses up to 0.206 °C/decade. And the observed trend since 1979 (averaging the various estimates), a reasonable null hypothesis, is roughly 0.14 °C/decade, well within 2σ bounds, hence clearly is not rejected.
I am so tired of these 'pause' assertions utterly lacking in statistical significance, inseparable from noise.
[Rob P] - KR, the usefulness of rebuttals is that one doesn't have to keep repeating one's self over and over again - just link to the rebuttal. It also demonstrates to lurkers that the myth being repeated has not only been debunked, but is also a zombie myth. AFAIK we don't have a specific rebuttal for this (hint, hint).
Nice charts Rob P.
What happens when one looks at them with uncertainties included?
UAH:
HadCRUT4:
GISTEMP:
RSS:
Are any of the above significantly different from zero?
[Rob P] - Russ, the data show that we cannot exclude warming up to 0.297°C over the period in question (GISS). Please read and understand what KR wrote being commenting any further - as dogged repetition of flawed ideas is a form of sloganeering and will attract censure.
[RH] Let's move any further discussion of this issue to this thread. And Russ, you're going to have to come up with something novel and interesting, that hasn't been debunked to death 1000 times before, to not get deleted as sloganeering. Forewarned.
For all,
When someone like Paul posts and says "I'm not a scientist" why overlook two fine resources on the Home Page? Refer the person to The Big Picture, and to the thermometer/most-used denier arguments, to start. If the person asks you to show them the science, well there it is.
[TD] My favorite is The New Abridged Skeptical Science Quick Reference Guide.
@Russ R. #29 One thing I found amusing about Lord Monkton's RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly graph and his LSQ fit on WUWT showing 0 degrees/decade trend over the 217 months from just before the super El Nino (from August 1996 in order to include super El Nino and thus mask underlying warming trend, how subtle can a person get ? ) to September 2014 is that it clearly shows that the 186-month trend from March 1999 ending September 2014 must then be a +ve warming trend because it drops the huge +ve offset in 1998. Since a 186-month trend is more recent than a 217-month trend this proves conclusively that "global warming" increased from August 1996 to March 1999. Furthermore (here comes the fun bit, thanks Chris) since any number divided by zero yields infinity Chris has proved that "global warming" increased infinitely from August 1996 to March 1999. I wasn't alarmed before but Chris's thoughtful analysis has alarmed me in an alarmy way.
(snip)
[RH] Off-topic for this thread. Please feel free to repost on another more relevant thread.
paul@18
"Since Im not a scientist...
...DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist."
Actually based on that one comment it would seem that could not do that. So why claim that you could? On top of that you are challenging a group of people that could!
Having been brought up as a Christian and having actually practiced it for many years, one of the fundemental aspects of it that I learnt was to be truthful. Hence to claim in one instance that you are no scientist and then later to state that you have enough knowledge of the models and subject to tweak a parameter, suggests you don't understand the religion you claim to defend.
paul@18 "Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda."
Your writing is full of agenda paul. Yet you accuse others of having an agenda.
paul@18 "It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe."
That statement is based on your personal opinion, not politics or religion. You have a personal belief which polarises your view about the subject. It has been clearly stated here that a large number of Christians disagree with your POV. How do you know that you are correct? What right do you have to assume that your God agrees with you when the same God also agrees with your opponents?
The reality is that there is far more agreement about the science than there is agreement about political ideology or intepretations of biblical texts within the factions of Christianity.
What you are doing is just expressing your interpretations of politics and religion and then superimposing them on science. It is you that is imposing an agenda on science.
paul@18 "As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't."
Why do you use the word belief?
In order to understand a subject you need to learn the subject, at that point it would be meaningless to use the word belief in relation to the subject.
You also contradict a previous paragraph/comment because you suggested you had enough knowledge to change parameters in a climate model. How can you claim to be able to tweak software parameters in a climate model yet not understand the greenhouse effect?
Basically paul there are a lot of holes in your writing. As an 'ex-Chistrian' I still believe honesty and facts are impotant, I would like to think the same is true for a practicing Christian.
@Paul D at 16 If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.
An interesting sidebar to the OP and comment thread can be found at:
Readers’ Experiences with Creationist Education by Dana Hunter, Scientific American, Oct 2, 2014
On a Positive Note: A Powerful Way to Harness the Power of Christians in Effectively Reserving AGW: Thanks to a recent 350.org petition drive, it became immediately obvious to me that getting the vatican fully on board would have tremendous beneficial impact. Its time for the catholic church to put its money, time & energy where its mouth is (the gospel of Jesus Christ). The all-out attack (such as the following points), if well coordinated and planned out would greatly help grease the grass-roots movement. Sks and 350.org (et al) need to take this to the highest level of activism. I plan to write to my local bishop the same message.
1) Pope Francis issues encyclical on climate change and man's global responsibility to care for future generations.
2) Vatican divests from FF's and strongly requests all the worlds catholic dioceses to do the same.
3) Vatican develops plan to become FF free by year 20XX. And, requests catholic dioceses to track parish, school & hospital carbon footprint, and develop plans to reduce usage and stick to their plans.
4) Vatican sponsors a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, policy leaders and climate knowledgable clergy to issue global strategical recomendations on how the catholic church can best make meaningful and effective long-term impacts on mitigating and reversing the sorry trend of AGW.
5) Vatican holds inter-faith conference with representatives from all religions to be part of the above blue-ribbon panel as well as to request equal efforts by all represented religions to do the same on their own accord.
6) Pope Francis announces the 'Year of the God's Creation' with expectation that dioceses hold seminars, novenas, special liturgical prayers for the sake of the world's future generations.
7) Pope Francis gives constant focus on this effort (don't let up), calling for all catholics to pray, pray, pray for positive changes to take place. That the world should come to acknowledge its greed. And, come to rely on God's grace and pray to repent. God will listen, and swords will fall. Slow but sure the fiber of holy life within our societies will start to rebuild and move toward the right direction. It is amazing what the power of prayer, over deep time, can do to instill God's goodness, grace and bring about holy, peaceful, healthy & sustainable living.
Probably many other things could be done such as getting the youth involved. A all-out attack like this would have a major impact on the 1.5 billion catholics; such a message would start to drive a wedge into many a thick skull thru-out the world. The message has to stay completely neutral politically, otherwise its no longer God at work (think MLK, not the moral majority). If Pope Francis and the whole church magisterium really got on board (as it should do, so to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ), then the above would have an amazing impact.
Join me in praying at the foot of the cross, that God speaks to Pope Francis and his immediate staff, and that they have the strength and inspiration to do the right thing.
Today (Oct.4) is St. Francis feast day (patron saint of the environment). Never a better time to start praying.
I was an evangelical (I prefer "theologically conservative" instead of "evangelical") Christian for a quarter century of my life. Rather than address Paul's posts against the science, please let me share what has worked for me when dealing with these rejections of science by my former fellow evangelicals - all the defenders of real science here already know what I will share, but I've found this following summary applied as follows to be quite effective:
First, for those who believe in God, all truth is God's truth. To deny any truth - including hard to swallow scientific truth - is to deny the One who is the Truth (Christ called himself the Truth). The most hard to deny form of truth is fact - especially hard data. Always push this. Bury those who reject the science in an ever-increasing mountain of undeniable fact that they can't handle, and demonstrate that the facts they give do not imply what they believe they imply - they are false implications. What follows deals with these false implications:
If they claim that a slowdown in atmospheric warming implies that global warming has stopped, then there are several ways to show this implication false. Simply being on a "flatter" part of a staircase-shaped increasing function does not mean that the function has stopped being an increasing function. Show them a simple function like h(x) = sin(x) + x. Long-term atmospheric warming has been roughly following such a cyclic pattern, every roughly 60 years according to Tung and Chen:
http://www.nature.com/news/atlantic-ocean-key-to-global-warming-pause-1.15755
This means no slowdown in the underlying uptrend trend even for atmospheric warming. Also, point out that in the last calendar year, according to the NOAA, last November, April, May, June, and August were the hottest months in recorded history (since the late 1800s) for their respective months (April this year tied April 2010):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
We may see 2014 become the hottest year in recorded history, even though it is not an El Nino year.
In addition to the above, do as a commenter did here, point to the oceans and the graph this commenter gave as well as others. Emphasize the "global" in global warming, to show that global warming does not mean merely atmospheric warming. And point out that including the oceans leads to the fact that global warming may actually be accelerating. More evidence for this acceleration is from this paper that came out yesterday:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html
This shows that the Southern Ocean may have been warming as much as twice as fast as previously thought.
When they try to use the increase in Antarctic sea ice as "evidence" that either global warming is not happening or has stopped, I first point out that the total mass of ice (land and sea) is decreasing at an accelerating rate in the Antarctic, and then I *always* hit them with the fact that their hero Judith Curry published a paper in 2010 which essentially tells us that the global warming that occurred and the global warming that will continue has caused and will continue to cause an increase in Antarctic sea ice for the next several decades until that trend finally reverses, still with ever-continuing global warming. Note: She has not retracted her authorship of that paper. See here for quotes from her and her coauthor:
"Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm
Also, a 2014 paper explored here
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-volume/
tells us that the amount of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is roughly an entire order of magnitude of 10 greater than the amount of increase in Antarctic sea ice volume, and that the increase in this latter is roughly half of the increase in the fresh water supply there. I add the corollary fact that they need to know that saltwater freezes at 28 degrees F and freshwater freezes at 32 degrees F.
There's more, but this should do for now.
Sks is open about its purpose.
"This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? "
That is my starting point. Sks appears convinced that global warming/climate change is upon the world and the mission is to refute views that differ.
Had a debate with a couple of fellas who were not climate scientists who believed the global warming alarmists. Joe says to me that John opined I was a hopeless case and that they ought to move on elsewhere. Joe then says to me "Paul, I told John your smarter than that."
The message was clear. If I agree I'm smart, if I disagree I'm NOT smart.
I got the message loud and clear.
[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comeets Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
So my question to any who care to respond is:
How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?
Sks comes across as close minded.
[JH] The introduction to the SkS Comments Policy reads as follows:
As stated above, "we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering."
If your future posts are in the same vein as the above and your prior post, they will be summarily deleted.
Paul, close-mindedness is the refusal to examine your own beliefs in the face of new evidence. You have been presented with new evidence and a variety of questions. You have, so far, refused to respond.
paul wrote: "How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"
Not everything is opinion. Some things are factually true or false. For example, you cited the common claim about 'global warming having stopped' being pushed by WUWT and other 'skeptics'. A moderator responded with a graph showing the teeny tiny portion of the warming that claim was based on and the continued massive warming of the rest of the climate system. Ergo, we conclude from the data that global warming has not stopped.
How can we have a discussion? Easy. You either acknowledge that the claim you copied from WUWT was wrong (and maybe consider what that should tell you about that site / 'side' of the 'debate') >or< you come up with some logical defense of the position you have taken (good luck with that one).
That's how discussion works. You took a position. Evidence was provided showing that your position is wrong. In a discussion you would now either accept the evidence or counter it... but you aren't doing that. Instead, you now appear to be seeking excuses to ignore the evidence and/or people presenting it. 'You have already made up your minds. There is no point talking to you.' Yes... we looked at the evidence and made conclusions. That's how logical decision making works. Why are you so desperately trying to avoid doing the same?
"Sks comes across as close minded."
Really? 'cuz you're welcome to provide evidentiary support for your position. You just aren't doing that. Maybe because you don't know of any? Yet, rather than acknowledge that, you are keeping the position and dismissing the evidence to the contrary and the people who provided it. Who exactly is being closed minded here?
Paul
"How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"
I think you are misunderstanding what a 'discussion' is when we are talking about the physical world/universe.
It isn't 'view' vs 'view'. It is 'evidence' vs 'evidence'.
You say you have a different view. Fine. But what evidence is that view based on? Why not put up an example of this evidence Paul? Otherwise it is just 'views' at 40 paces which is worthless.
Why not lead with something? A piece of evidence in support of a view.
@paul #14:
No one predicted this. This claim comes from a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of something Al Gore said in 2007. Neither he nor anyone else said that the polar ice caps (by which you actually mean the Arctic ice cap) would have melted by now.
It's impossible to argue coherently using false "facts" like this.
A quibble:
I believe the use of CO2 per capita and the implied good guy/bad guys comparison between more developed/less developed nations introduces a political, not scientific argument, and that such arguments detract, not add to the persuasiveness of the case made here.
It is a bit like comparing my household energy consumption to yours and finding that my family unit carbon footprint is "smaller", where the case is that I have 14 at one address, while your household has none and uses half the energy of mine. Yet I'm four times more efficient by your measure. Now imagine that you are required you to cut your energy use by 75% and perhaps to mail me a check for the savings.
It would be better to stay with the science, but if one can't resist the temptation to make such arguments, then use C02 output per sq km of habitable land.