earthtimes.org | Hudson Institute | September 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
. . . more
My kids are terrified of global warming!
Tell them not to worry. These apocalyptic scenarios have a shelf life of about five years. We are in year two.
I didn’t see the names of any new scientists, just the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.
The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank funded by corporations with a financial interest in weak environmental regulation. The Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being “Free Market Right” and 1 “Radical Left.”
S. Fred Singer used to work for the Tobacco Induustry putting our bogus research trying to disprove the association between second-hand smoke and cancer. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
Dennis Avery’s pet peeve is organic farming. He crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology (Monsanto) will save the world from starvation and disaster. Avery is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
So don’t be fooled into thinking these guys are objective sources of information. The careers of Singer and Avery represent the worst sort of acedemic whoredom imaginable.
Mr. Scourtes #3:
Okay, so you have specific problems with two of the 500+ scientists who refute elements of global warming hysteria. But, you claim the other 498+ are “the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.”
Are you a scientist? Do you know and understand all of these scientists’ work? Are you really confident that they are all hacks and stooges?
Oh, silly me, I almost forgot. Any scientist who does not support the “consensus” is obviously a hack or a stooge (or both). Everyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be malevolent.
D. George writes: “Okay, so you have specific problems with two of the 500+ scientists who refute elements of global warming hysteria. But, you claim the other 498+ are ‘the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.'”
From the article I can’t tell what the scientists are saying, or what their actual positions are.
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.
What does that mean? What elements? What does it mean to “refute” an element? What are the “scares?” If a scientist believes that man-made global warming is a serious problem resulting in various disasters, but doesn’t believe that there will be massive flooding, has he “refuted” one of the “scares?”
And what does this mean —
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
How many is “not all of?” What does it mean to say that researchers aren’t global warming skeptics, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see?” Does that mean the researchers don’t understand their own studies?
Mr. Holman #5:
“From the article I can’t tell what the scientists are saying, or what their actual positions are.”
The article did not present details of the research. I agree. I am very impressed that Mr. Scourtes knows enough about all of these 500+ scientists to know, with certainty, that they are all “hacks and stooges.” Not only that, he is so familiar with them all that he refers to them as the “the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.” He must use all of his free time reading scientific journals, and I am sure that his credentials as a scientists are impeccable.
“What does that mean? What elements? What does it mean to “refute” an element?”
The article indicated that the 500+ scientists were either presenting evidence that the consequences of global warming are not as dire as predicted, or that the cause of global warming is not anthropogenic, or both.
“How many is ‘not all of?’ What does it mean to say that researchers aren’t global warming skeptics, ‘but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see?’ Does that mean the researchers don’t understand their own studies?”
Not at all. Many scientists who argue against the anthropogenic causation hypothesis are not skeptical that global warming occurs, and are thus, by definition, not “global warming skeptics.” I actually saw a presentation by one such scientist back in 2002 or so. The fellow argued global warming was caused by solar activity. So, no, these scientists are not confused about their own research.
There are three players in this debate, the fools who are sure that AGW is true, the fools who are sure that AGW is untrue, and the reasonable people who understand that the issue is so complex and involves so many unknowns that it would be foolish to have an opinion.
John: I give you God’s Fool: Pope Benedict. In response to conservative calls for more dithering and denial, procrastination and complacency, Pope Benedict has issued the following remarks:
Pope to youth: Save planet ‘before it is too late’
Pontiff speaks to up to half-a-million at Church’s ‘eco-friendly’ youth rally, MSNBC, Sept 2, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20548340/
From the Encyclical of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for the day of the protection of natural environment
http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2512
There is no such thing as a “God’s Fool”, only a fool’s god. When believing becomes a virtue, questioning becomes a sin.
Mr. Scourtes #8 & #9:
Benedict’s remarks could refer to any number of environmental problems, and may not indicate a belief in anthropogenic-caused global warming. Of course, he has no expertise regarding these matters.
His All-Holiness, however, goes way over the top and is once again an embarassment to the Orthodox Church. From his encyclical:
“Recent unusual temperature fluctuations, hurricanes, earthquakes … are the results of human actions, whether carried out openly or executed in secret.”
This is crazy-talk! Men don’t cause earthquakes. This is reminiscent of the whole New Age “Gaia” thing where people think the earth has a brain and is out to punish us. Patriarch Bartholomew knows nothing about science, so he should spare the Church the embarassment and stop talking about issues of which is he completely ignorant. This is about as shameful as when he visited with Castro awhile back. Instead of pushing for religious freedom like John Paul II did on his visit, our patriarch fawned over the brutal dictator instead. It is very difficult to explain away this sort of nonsense to my heterodox relatives.
Note 11, JohnH, God isn’t afraid of our questions, ask Him anything you want respectfully, prayerfully and then watch for the answer
The point of this article is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature contains numerous studies that contradict what is proclaimed loudly in the popular press.
To give one example that ties in with Patriarch Bartholomew, when there was widespread flooding in eastern Europe (2003 I think) he announced that it was due to Americans driving SUVs. This was a statement of profound ignorance and was an embarrassment to the Orthodox Church. But the idea has legs, and has been a staple in the European and US press ever since.
Two German researchers studied the history of severe floods in that region and came to the conclusion that there was nothing unusual about what happened. The results were published in a presitigous journal. Did this study ever see the light of day in the popular press? No. The narrative is already set, and facts – even peer-reviewed – don’t matter.
We Orthodox should have the longest memory of all the Christian churches, and should be least prone to fall for temporal fads and alarmism.
Note 13 TomC, when theology is based on secular science then theology must change as science changes
Theology should be only about those things which are eternal and immutable, it should not be based on the shifting sands of human knowledge.
Re 14) Befuddled writes: “Theology should be only about those things which are eternal and immutable, it should not be based on the shifting sands of human knowledge.”
Unless you are not a human, the only knowledge you have is human knowledge. What is eternal and immutable to one is shifting sand to another. You will ony ever see through your own eyes.
Note 15, JohnH, aye there’s the rub, is there something eternal or not?
Here’s the rub JohnH. You don’t think there is any other point of view except the human. I know there is another point of view and another source of knowledge, revealed knowledge of the Divine.
I decline to enter into another debate with another agnostic or atheist, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
A debate is a presentation of two opposing points of view. To present your half and then declare an unwillingness to debate is merely a plea to restrain the other half. You have already debated.
To say that you know that you know because you know your knowledge is revealed knowledge must make your foot sore from all the stamping.
Note17, JohnH, no foot stamping
Last time I looked this is still a free country and I can still decide how I will use my time. I don’t have time for this debate.
There are many sites on the internet where Christians and non-Christians debate this particular issue and if you want to you can participate in those debates. The issue has been debated for centuries and probably will continue to be debated for centuries.
You are similarly free to use your time as you see fit and to adopt whatever position you want to adopt on the issues.
I didn’t stamp my feet I simply stated my position.
Have a nice day
Note 18, JohnH, since you don’t share Patriarch Bartholomew’s world view
why you do care what he writes or preaches?
You obviously don’t share Patriarch Bartolomew’s world view so why would you care about the quality of his theological statements? You are in fundamental disagreement with his most fundamental, initial premises so why bother?
John: When a scientist sets up a research question and poses a null hypothesis there are four possible outcomes. True Positive, False Positive (type I error) True Negative, and False Negative (type II error).
Let’s suppose our null hypothesis is that: global warming is not man-made.
A Type I error would be that we decide global warming is not man made, so do nothing, but we are wrong. A Type II error would be if we decide that global warming is man made and adjust our behavior accordingly, but we were wrong and our actions have no impact on temperature change.
Which type of error is worse? With Type I error we ignore global warming and we suffer droughts and famine in some parts of the world and flooding and catastrophic weather events in other parts of the world. America’s beautiful national forests dry out and burn down and are replaced by desert. Hundreds of millions of people become environmental refugees and their attempts to relocate in other countries sparks war and conflict. (BTW – The figures are in: Greece lost 5 MILLION Olive trees during it’s drought-induced forest fires last month- it’s agricultural-based economy is devastated.)
With type II error we make investments in new technologies that result in cleaner air and lowered use of oil and coal-based energry Cases of asthma and bronchitis drop due to reduced airborne particulate matter, while America’s trade deficit with other countries starts to fall to to lower oil imports. The sacrifices we have to make include accepting nuclear power, building windmills, attaching solar panels to the roofs of our houses, paying a higher gasoline taxes, driving in smaller vehicles and/or taking public transportation.
Wouldn’t it appear to any reasonable and rational person that type I error is by far worse than type II error? Wouldn’t the basic principles of risk management dictate that when the cost on inaction are greater than the cost of action, you must act to mitigate and avoid a potential theat.
Fortunately we do not have to make our decision on the basis of risk alone. We know that 99% of the world’s climate scientists have already confirmed that global warming is real and caused by man-made activities. These are the respectable scientists who work for our government agencies and whose research is published and peer-reviewed by other scientists. A very small number of scientists and academics in the employment of an energy industry seeking to protect its profits, have been hired to confuse the public with spurious data and misleading comments.
While we should always be objective and open-minded, common sense should tell us that this second group is comprised of mercenaries and hirelingswho are never going to tell us the truth, but only industry propaganda. As newspaper publisher A.O. Sulzbeger once remarked, “I believe in being open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brain falls out.”
18) “Last time I looked this is still a free country and I can still decide how I will use my time. I don’t have time for this debate.”
To hint that anyone is questioning your rights or insisting that you do anything is very silly. You clearly find the time to keep responding and it is clearly how you wish to use your time.
As for the debate in question, the subject is whether or not you know more than you know, being a human. There is no reason to believe that you have access to a higher knowledge. You merely have your ever-so-human opinion and it is well-supported by fact or not. Dismissing the opinions of others as mere “shifting sands” of human knowledge is epistemologically self-invalidating as long as you are a human.
If you don’t wish to debate, don’t.
19) “You obviously don’t share Patriarch Bartolomew’s world view so why would you care about the quality of his theological statements? You are in fundamental disagreement with his most fundamental, initial premises so why bother?”
Are we only to address those who we know to be in agreement with us? Should we not try to deliver others from their ignorance and error? If you are in disagreement with me, why do you bother?
20) Dean Scourtes writes:
“A Type II error would be if we decide that global warming is man made and adjust our behavior accordingly, but we were wrong and our actions have no impact on temperature change.”
Our actions have impacts throughout the world, though they may not effect climate. Suggesting that we take actions without good reasons is not wise. Climate change is not a good reason. People are making choices all the time. Build a windmill if you wish, but suggesting that everyone should when you do not have a good case is mistaken. Forcing them to is evil. The precautionary principle is silly since it is not “cautious” to act without a good reason. It is reminiscent of the old religious argument: even if you don’t believe in God, should you not pray and worship anyway, just in case? Of course not. You should act because of what you believe, not because of an error you might be making. These are desparate arguments made by those who cannot make a case, so they suggest that you pretend to agree with them and act accordingly – just in case. Silly.
Note 20. Dean writes:
Regarding Greece: the last report is that almost all (maybe all) of the fires were started by arson. Why? Because Greece has no land registry and squatters can claim ownership merely by possessing (tilling, building) the land after a number of years. Investigators have said that the large fires were started by squatters when the small fires got out of control. The fires of Greece are related to internal corruption and the inability to uniformly enforce the law, and not global warming.
Type II error: It sounds nice, but since you’ve removed the social policy from its ostensible rationale (global warming) it begs this question: who much of the global warming hoopla is really about social engineering? If you can justify economic retooling without resort to global warming, then the effects of this type of economic interference needs more justification than the feel good optimism that implicitly informs your thesis.
Your thesis then, assumes a point that should never be taken for granted: economic retooling won’t have any deleterious effects. It’s called the law of unintended effects. Be wary when good motives alone are used to justify policy.
Thus, when you ask:
… the answer is no, because the thesis is not complete. More serious thinking is required.
we ignore global warming and we suffer droughts and famine in some parts of the world and flooding and catastrophic weather events in other parts of the world.
Yet, over all arable land goes up, which means more food for the world. As someone so concerned about the “poor”, I would think you would be doing your darndest to increase “global warming”…
I feel like such a broken record, but here I go again: Political ideology should NEVER be used in place of spiritual truth and praxsis. Unfortunately far too many of our bishops confuse the two. Pat. Bartholomew does on the environment.
The theological truth that man is steward of the rest of the phenominological world and is commanded by God to dress and keep the earth cannot be ignored by serious Orthodox Christians. It should be an integral part of the spiritual practice of every Orthodox alive. It involves asceticism and spiritual warfare which undoubtely strikes at the root of our mechanistic/electronic, debt funded world. It is to that asceticism that Pat. Batholomew should be calling us (because it is far more radical and effective) rather than the silly and often destructive political analogs.
To translate any such spiritual practice into political action on a mass scale is dangerous and usually results in the destruction of the value of the practice and little else.
Despite Dean S’s repeated contentions to the contrary there is nothing in the New Testament or the Tradition that compels us to accept mass political solutions to spiritual problems and much that would vitiate against such acceptance.
Note 23, JohnH, deliver from ignorance and error
Well, JohnH, I assume you are over 18 and can do what you please.
I must say that trying to convince an Orthodox Patriarch that the existence of the Divine is merely a myth would be a good trick!!!! Let me know how that works out.
I was raised in the church, then I went through a period in which I considered myself an atheist, then I embrached Christianity after quite a bit of reading, and studying and varied life experiences. I hold a degree in an applied natural science from a respectable academic institution. I don’t claim to be a theological scholar but I am generally familiar with the usual pro and con arguments regarding the existence of God or related topics. I really don’t want to go around that block with you, BUT, maybe somebody else on the board will.
Tom C. writes: “The point of this article is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature contains numerous studies that contradict what is proclaimed loudly in the popular press.”
I don’t think that’s what the article is actually asserting. I think what happened is that the authors of the book found articles with isolated passages that may have disputed some point of what is commonly called the “consensus position.”
This, I think explains the unusual locution in the article: “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.” The author seems to assert that there are things in the studies that don’t support AGW, even though the authors are not skeptical of AGW.
Note also “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.” The article isn’t saying that 500 researchers disputed AGW; it’s saying that 500 researchers wrote articles in which “at least one element” of AGW “scares” — whatever those are — was disputed.
For example, in the famous double murder case, one could hold that fibers found at the murder scene similar to those found in O.J. Simpson’s cap really weren’t from his cap, while holding that nonetheless O.J. committed the murders. In other words, many researchers might not agree on all the evidence related to AGW, while still believing in AGW. I think this is what the article is saying — though not the impression that it wants to give.
There was already a study of global warming articles done by Science magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
I would find it hard to believe that not one of 928 articles reviewed by Science magazine would disagree with the concensus position, and then a paid tobacco and oil lobbyist could find articles by 500 scientists doing exactly that.
Whatever you think of AGW, this piece is simply propaganda, written carefully to give an impression that almost certainly is disputed by the facts.
#28
The study was not sponsored by Science magazine. It was the effort of Ms. Oreskes, who wrote the article. It is a sign of the weakness of global warming alarmism that this paper gets repeatedly cited, as it was a travesty. Ms. Oreskes did not even bother to keep the list of the 928 abstracts so that we could check them ourselves. She misplaced, or deleted it, or the dog ate it, or it was stolen by right-wing stooges and hacks, or something.
S. Fred Singer, who you persist in calling a “tobacco lobbyist” is probably the most highly qualified scientist who has addressed the AGW question in its entirety: from atmospheric science to resource management to economics, etc. Singer’s resume is unmatched in this arena.
Polar bears are not dying; Antarctica is gaining ice, not losing it; the Northwest pasage has been open and navigated many times in the last 50 years; the floods in Europe were nothing special; the heat wave deaths in Europe were due to nursing homes without attendants or air conditioners; the fires in Greece were due to arson, etc. etc.
The frantic name-calling that this issue now engenders shows that the game is already over, though it might take a few more years for it to fizzle out.
I feel like such a broken record, but here I go again:
It’s not about discussion/learning, it’s all propaganda and “debate”. If you choose to, you will repeating the same thing on the next 5 or 10 “global warming” threads over the next year or so, because the same two persons (Dean and Jim) will be repeating the same assertions.
Fr. Jacobse, when is this blog going to be about something other than what Dean and Jim decide it is about??
Note 13. Tom C. writes:
Imagine if an Orthodox Patriarch had embraced the Paul Erlich “Population Bomb” nonsense of the 1970’s or whatever the fad of the decade happened to be. A few years down the line credibility will erode because the ignorance will be revealed for what it is.
We saw the same mistake made in the Cuba trip a few years back. At crucial junctures, in this case human rights, the wrong decisions were made. More specifically, decisions were made that dovetailed too closely with liberal utopianism; decisions that always come back to haunt once the moral air has cleared.
My read is that the Constantinople doesn’t really understand the cultural dynamics of the West. They rely on advisors who mimic so much of the thinking that afflicts the religious left, that ideas don’t really matter as long as the intentions are good, and so you get these hamfisted statements that sound, well, so stupid down the road.
I have no doubt that the Patriarch supports human rights, and his defense of the integrity of the natural environment is necessary and good. But he has got to be more aware that entities like the NCC (which was involved in planning the CUBA trip) will use him to further their agenda. He cannot afford too many of these gaffes — but I’m not sure he understands how foolish it might all appear.
Note 29. Tom C. writes:
Yes. When Newsweek ran their cover story a few months back branding all man-made global warming “deniers” as Neanderthal throwbacks, I could see the shelf life of the movement was less than I first thought. The attack came too early in the game. It was desperate. This thing might die faster than we think.
Well, at least Al Gore cashed in.
Christopher asks: “when is this blog going to be about something other than what Dean and Jim decide it is about”?
Just a humble suggestion … they have these sites now that allow you to set up your own blog where you can write about any topic under the sun and where you can moderate comments so that any “disagreeable” ideas are blocked before they are actually posted online.
Try blogspot.com … or even myspace. It’s somewhat rude to pop in and tell others how to run their site, don’t you think?
Here’s a challenge for you: this week, go ahead and put one up where you can broadcast your ideas to the world without interference by “trolls”, as you call them.
James:
Here is a “humble” suggestion for you:
Learn something about Orthodoxy, so you don’t repeat the same questions our to ignorance over and over and over. Also, don’t parrot the secular left when talking to Traditional Christians. If you don’t agree, move on – don’t make this blog a place where you “work out” your beef with Christians, and certainly don’t use it as a crucible for your own pagan world view like Jim. Finally, don’t complain when I and others properly point out rude and Trollish behavior
If you do these things, then you won’t be a Troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Tom C. writes: “The study was not sponsored by Science magazine. It was the effort of Ms. Oreskes, who wrote the article.”
Well let’s look at the language in the article posted here. Why doesn’t the author just say “500 authors of of peer-reviewed scientific articles don’t believe in man-made global warming” — if that’s really the case?
Why does he say “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics, . . . but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see” — as if their evidence contradicts their positions.
The author says that “More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance.”
But there can be more than one cause of global warming. So what are we supposed to make of that statement?
So — the authors of the book have this list of literally hundreds of scientists. What actually gets mentioned in the article? One Forest Service employee talking about tree rings. But there’s nothing mentioned about what this person thinks about global warming per se, or whether she even has any opinion on it at all.
Look, think whatever you will about global warming, or the article I cited. The language in this article is very odd. The author implies that he has the smoking gun — 500 smoking guns to be exact, but doesn’t deliver even one smoking gun in unambiguous, clear statements. Why is that?
And finally, there is this interesting statement at the end of the article:
They [the authors] also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Well that’s a relief. So we look up Wallace O. Sellers and what do we find?
Currently, he is Chairman of Natural Gas Services, Inc., of Midland, Texas.
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=Brd8
Actually, it’s Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. Sellers was chairman until 2006, when he retired because of health problems. At that time he owned around 700,000 shares of company stock.
So again, there is another clever twist in the article. No, the book wasn’t funded by a corporation. It was just funded by the chairman of the board and major stockholder of a corporation in the energy business.
Tom C.: “S. Fred Singer, who you persist in calling a “tobacco lobbyist” is probably the most highly qualified scientist who has addressed the AGW question in its entirety: from atmospheric science to resource management to economics, etc. Singer’s resume is unmatched in this arena.”
I suppose that’s why Wallace Sellers hired him to write the book. I’m sure he got the best book money could buy.
Christopher, your link was informative:
“Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others … The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person, coupled with the person’s history with the forum or group … A troll’s main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board’s other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.”
I’m being honest here … this sounds more like you than any other contributor here. Is this whole persona of yours an elaborate hoax? If it is, you’re very clever, although I’m unclear as to the intent.
If you wish to lead others to Orthodoxy, you might be more persuasive if you actually attempted to embody the values you espouse and absorbed and internalized some of the references you refer to.
# 35 Jim Holman
The strategy of global warming alarmists has been to present an ensemble of facts and scenarios and then claim that “all scientists agree with these”. The ensemble includes:
Higher global temperatures
Frequent heat waves
Severe flooding
Killer hurricanes
Polar bears headed for extinction
20 foot rise in seal level
Etc.
In fact, there is a hilarious web site that catalogues all the disasters that will be associated with global warming as presented in the popular press. A good percentage of them contradict one another.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Here is another great example:
“Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.”
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.”
-Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007
Here is the point of the article to which you are the textual Torquemada: while there might be unanimity on the first point ( higher global temperature) of the ensemble, there is widespread disagreement about nearly every other point. The disagreement is amply documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The dishonest strategy of the alarmists is to claim that the unanimity on the first point is also unanimity on the ensemble.
As an example, there were severe floods in central Europe in 2002. European politicians and patriarchs claimed that this was due to the US, or George Bush, or Exxon, or whatever. However, here is the citation to a serious scientific examination of the flood attribution:
http://www.bafg.de/servlet/is/5065/Mudelsee_2003_NATURE_flood.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=Mudelsee_2003_NATURE_flood.pdf
…published in what is supposed to be the world’s premier scientific journal.
Question for you: why are discussions on the flooding not based on this serious science, but instead on the incoherent talk of a patriarch who thinks that humans cause earthquakes?
Look Jim, you seem to be a fairly smart guy. This global warming stuff has descended into utter nonsense. Might want to get ahead of the curve to avoid future embarassment.
Christopher,
Part of the problem you perceive is due to the nature of this site. It is not just an Orthodox theology site, nor is it solely a cultural/political site. The confluence of the two creates some major turbulence. Jim posts more often than anyone else. The sheer volume of his posts means that his viewpoint tends to dominate. His persistence in denying everything substantial within Orthodox thought is irritating. Especially since he has actually read Orthodox literature and attended a few services, both of which he professes to find beautiful and “moving”. I sometimes think he has read more Orthodox material than Dean has. Still, Jim refuses to understand Orthodox thought because he refuses union with Christ.
It seems to be part of my make-up, and perhaps yours, that I find it difficult to refuse a fight especially when it is futile. I am trying to curb that tendency by doing the best to ignore Jim’s posts and make statements that I feel are a reflection of the teaching of the Church on the topic at hand. I do not do a good job, but I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that it is a waste of time and energy trying to change someone else’s mind. The best I can do is to allow the Holy Spirit to transform my mind. (I use the term mind in the fullest Orthodox sense as my entire cogent being).
Rationalistic materialists have nothing knowledgeable to say concerning Orthodox thought no matter how much they study it. They will forever be incorrigibly ignorant of the reality of the Church because they worship the created thing more than or in place of the Creator. Nothing you or I can say will make a dent unless the Holy Spirit precedes our words. They prefer their massive ignorance to the truth and they feel the same toward us. I fear there is a gulf set between us that cannot be crossed over or rather only the Cross can bridge the chasm.
Come Holy Spirit and enlighten and soften the hearts of all who read and post here, that we may know the Truth and the Truth will set us free.
I included below several must-see videos on the Glogal Warming debate. They make some key points that balance out the hysteria of the alarmists and the dogma and propaganda spread by Al Gore and his blind and unquestioning followers.
Beck’s global warming special with industry-funded “experts”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RxPNFy27kc&NR=1
Exposed: the Climate of Fear – Glenn Beck (full video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7221788764767175476
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part I of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo2VSsDqsk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part II of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Venw45DNX5g
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part III of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRcIVBwrTVk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part IV of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWaKP2Dj7Xc
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part V of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQxCq59_g4
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part VI of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcRc_UuK5To
Germany is demonstrating that a modern industrial nation can make the transition to renewable energy and meet the targets of the Kyoto Treaty, without damaging it’s economy. In the process Germany is becoming a leader in important new alternative energy technologies and industries, while the United States, in a thrall to backward conservative economic dogma, continues to fall behind.
The German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology reports:
Renewable energies in Germany – A Success Story
Expansion is central goal of German government’s energy policy
http://www.german-renewable-energy.com/Renewables/Navigation/Englisch/root.html
Dean, All of Germany could stop producing all Carbon Dioxide and it will still not make ANY DIFFERENCE since China will become the worst world polluter by 2009. Please do tell us how you will control China and also India both of which have REJECTED the Kyoto guidelines?
China CO2 Emissions To Surpass US In 2009
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003957.html
Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions and China is embarked on an internal propaganda campaign to blame the rest of the world.
Last month the International Energy Agency announced that China would probably surpass the United States as the world’s largest contributor of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 2009, more than a full decade earlier than anticipated. This forecast could spur China to adopt tough new energy and environmental standards, but it probably won’t. China has already embarked on a very different strategy to manage its environmental reputation: launching a political campaign that lays much of the blame for the country’s mounting environmental problems squarely on the shoulders of foreigners and, in particular, multinational companies.
While still in its initial stages, the campaign has gained steam over the past month. Senior Chinese officials, the media and even some environmental activists have charged multinational firms and other countries with exporting pollution, lowering their environmental manufacturing standards and willfully ignoring China’s environmental regulations. Faced with growing international and popular discontent over the country’s environmental crisis, China’s leaders are tapping into anti-foreign and nationalist sentiments to deflect attention from their own failures.
First off, China’s not going to help. Second, if they are going to surpass the United States in 2009 then where are they going to be in 2019 or 2029? (snip)
Note 41, We have clean sources of electricity for the next 300 years
America is blessed with a 300 year supply of coal, all within our own boundaries. Coal powered electric power plants constructed after 1990 are virtually pollution free– REPEAT– pollution free. This means that we have vritually no constraints industrial development in the United States.
Cars represent the largest supply of air pollution and the technology exists to solve that—the electric car. We just need recharging stations dotted around the landscape as we have gas stations. This is doable–far less trouble than the moon landing.
Agricultural run-off and water shortages remain a tough problem in the Western United States. The solution is not likely to be easy or cheap.
Germany’s econony is very differrent in terms of their pollution challenges because to the best of my knowledge they do not have coal.
As to the Chinese? They are basically a criminal enterprise in the form of a government.
Note 36:
It is a bit low is it not, to turn the definition around like that? To point out that Someone like Jim, who explicitly admits he “uses” this site to “sharpen his philosophy”, to point out his behavior is personal yes. That is part of a Troll’s method however, to draw attention to the personal (by his bad behavior) and then turn around and complain “your getting personal”. Of course! I know you resist it, but “Orthodoxy” means something. Try to at least get a minimal handle on it…
note 38:
I do not do a good job, but I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that it is a waste of time and energy trying to change someone else’s mind.
EXACTLY! The discussions here should be on the level of ideas, and Fr. Jacobse does his best to keep it at that level and is his explicit goal if I am not mistaken. That said, it can not be about ANY idea, it has to have focus to be meaningful. This is why it has to have previous commitments, a “perspective” that things are discussed from. This is why I believe Jim’s and Dean’s participation is illegitimate. They don’t want to play by the rules, they want to “debate” not only every jot and tittle, but from a perspective alien not only to Orthodoxy, but also to anything resembling Christianity. This blog is NOT “OrthodoxyToday”, it is “RoundTableFoodFightToday”. I have no interest in “engaging” the Jim’s of this world – and to be blunt we have nothing to learn from them (which really goads them, because in their world view every other philosophy known to man is “closed minded”). God has other plans for them, and I really don’t see how allowing them to indulge in this endless bantering is part of that plan.
It’s too bad, because I think there is a real need for Orthodoxy to engage the culture, but it ain’t happening here to any serious degree – because of two people, TWO PEOPLE!!
But hey, Orthodoxy in America is not known for it’s robustness. Look at the OCA, where 1 bishop out of 11 has any interest in following the 8th commandment. Or the Greeks, where in my city of 1+ million people (Charlotte, NC) one parish does the liturgy in 99% greek, the other is about 60% greek. But I digress….none of this has anything to do with justifying the killing the unborn…;)
JIM! ATTEND!!: do us a favor and write a 9 paragraph explication of why we Terry was not really a person, or why the sordid details of Roe justify the murder of the unborn – we need a few more years of this…;)
Missourian: I can see Dean et.al choaking already—COAL???? You said COAL??? That’s worse than the demon rum what with strip mining, miner deaths and disability, etc.
The fact of the matter is that to “environmentalists” there is simply no satisfactory way to produce power. None what so ever. Not even wind power, because that kills birds. The entropic state is what the long for.
They are obscene in their denial of humanity.
Christopher, in about three weeks (God willing) the venue you want will be unveiled. The level of discussion you want requires a clarity and focus a public blog cannot provide. A blog that actually examines ideas in depth and detail has to be moderated, requires select contributors, and has to be free of such intellectual vices as substituting emotion for reason, etc.
Keep in mind too that there are lots of lurkers on this blog. Look at the stats: 838,514 visitors since April, 06 (actually more because sometimes the counter breaks). That’s a healthy number for a second tier blog like this one. I’d love to see a million a year but it will take another two years probably to build that kind of readership.
Just found this: The Treehouse.
Michael, is this your church?
It is a Pan-Orthodox Ministry in Wichita, but the executive director is a parishoner at St. George. It was the vision of two women who prayed together, planned together and then submitted it to their respective parishes. It is one of the better ministries we support.
RE: Number 46 & 47: That is exactly the type of organization that some of the federal Family Planning funding that is now going to Planned Parenthhood, should be diverted to. I certainly think that there is a majority consensus in this country that the concept of family planning includes adoption and helping young unwed mothers carry to term. It’s not just condoms and abortions.
Faith-based initiatives are one of the few really good ideas proposed by the Bush administration. If it had been more interested in policy, rather than only gaining political advantage, the Bush adnministration could have demonstrated how small non-for-profits can sometimes provide a better alternative to government-run, social programs.
RE 48)
No, government should not have anything to do with any of these issues. Such matters should be entirely the voluntary concern of individuals and groups who care about such things. Forcing Christians to fund abortions is no worse than forcing atheists to fund “faith-based” activities. The use of force is the fundamental sin.
Note 48: Dean writes:
Some? So the government should fund abortion on the one hand and saving the unborn on the other?