Skepticism about Climate Change

[LesPalenik]

While God will never let you down, science will.

Very strange! In my short life, I found the exact opposite.
 

[JKoerner007]

You're assuming that all the facts are known.

Where did I assume this?

The assumption here is yours.

That scientists are above reproach, that they never put their thumb on the scale for their own profit and pride and fame.  That people who disagree with a scientific theory do so because in their longer life then you, they have seem countless so-called proven theories disproved or reversed. That scientific knowledge never evolves, as Einstein famously disproved.

All deliberate, utter fallacies you spew, just to keep talking.

What you don't recognize is the fact that science forever changes, forever challenges itself is good. The ability to keep learning = forever willing to change and grow in a better direction.
(E.g., film photography became digital photography. E.g., basic penicillin morphed into ampicillin, amoxicillin, Augmentin, carbapenems, etc.)
Science forever changing, forever growing, means methods are forever becoming better.

By contrast, religion = stagnation.
The same drivel repeated forever.
If you were a bit more observant, rather than growing, religion shrinks as science advances.
 

You see in the end, you are the same as people of faith in God.

The only thing I see, in the end, is the blindness of the religious ... the refusal to see, quite frankly.

Instead of God, you put your faith in science and the physical world to give you comfort and belief.

Yes, as mentioned in previous posts, I put my faith in reason: what is measurable, observable, and repeatable.

The only thing we agree on is that I do take comfort in this.

You? You put your faith in what? A book that was written in an age of utter ignorance?
You find faith in what? Something that's never been seen ... in over 2000 years?

To each his own.

But while God is unchanging, science is.

Actually, the edicts of The Church have changed markedly ... as science has progressed.
By contrast, science has never shrunk because of a single religious "fact" ... and that's because there are no facts in religion, only faith in the unseen.

But while God is unchanging, science is. While  God will never let you down, science will.

God will never let you down? Wow. Don't even know how to respond to that ... as a casualty investigator for 29 years I've seen a lot of carnage happen to "the faithful" ...

But back to facts: No one has ever seen or produced a god, so how do you know if a god can/cannot change?

If you can pull your head out of your own religion, you would be able to gain the perspective of realizing there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of gods that have been worshiped over millennia. Roman. Greek. And everywhere inbetween. (Some say Hinduism alone has 320 million gods; others say it has one that takes 320 million forms).

The point is, we are really not that different, you and I. We are both atheists.

You disbelieve every single god ever offered in human existence ... 'save one' ... the one you still cling to.

Me? I disbelieve in all the others too ... same as you ... I just believe in one less god than you.

Jack

[Alan Klein]

Of course science has value.  I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works.  And that's fascinating.  But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose.  It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love. 

[LesPalenik]

Of course science has value.  I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works.  And that's fascinating.  But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose. It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love.

Applied science does.
Let's take artificial knee or hip. It took a lot of research, experimentation, and yes even faith to perfect it to the level where it is now. It was beyond the capabilities of God.
 

[JKoerner007]

Of course science has value.  I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works.  And that's fascinating.

Science explains everything, with facts.

Religion explains nothing, offering only fables.

Science is responsible for everything positive in medicine, standard of living, technology.

Religion is responsible for everything negative, "holy wars," "Jihad," denial of science, parents letting their kids die (refusing medicine, etc.).

But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose.

Malarkey.

It is, in fact, the polar opposite ... dedication to science (truth/fact) IS the purpose of life

Dedication to religion is dedication to deceit, stagnation, "stories," and gives false pretenses to an authentic life.

It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love.

Interesting revelation. (I don't "watch" sex. Never been into porn.)

In my view, "beauty and meaning" come from honesty: an honest attraction, an honest immersion into another, and a total liberation of inhibitions piqued by the desire to please the other as well as myself.

"The beauty and meaning of love" sure as hell (pardon the reference) doesn't come from "watching others have sex" or from having a religious book nearby.

Jack

PS: This can go on forever. My rebuttals to everything you can say are already posted. Cheers.

[Alan Klein]

Applied science does.
Let's take artificial knee or hip. It took a lot of research, experimentation, and yes even faith to perfect it to the level where it is now. It was beyond the capabilities of God.
 

I think artificial legs are great.  But so is a scrambled egg sandwich.  Both keep us alive and able to survive and get on in the world.  But neither provides meaning or purpose to life. 

[Alan Klein]

It is, in fact, the polar opposite ... dedication to science (truth/fact) IS the purpose of life

You have made science God.  You have put your faith in science.  You're just as religious although it would be considered idol worship. You see it all comes down to believing in something.  We all need faith.  We have to trust in something.  It's very lonely and scary without it. 

[JKoerner007]

You have made science God.  You have put your faith in science.  You're just as religious although it would be considered idol worship. You see it all comes down to believing in something.  We all need faith.  We have to trust in something.  It's very lonely and scary without it.

Alan,

I haven't made anything "a god." I believe what I see, what can be measured, what can be counted upon.

You lack the ability to discern the difference. Please revisit the post I made on reason.

Reason to believe, versus no reason to believe.

The reason I believe in science is because, at any time, I can measure, observe, and repeat the same consistent results in any applied science I choose.

You believe in god ... why?
Because your mommy raised you that way?
Because you're scared to step into an insouciant world?
Show me your god. Give me the equation to understand. You can't.

I can spend all day showing you the advents of science ... while you can't spend one second showing me a god.

I am not "alone" or "scared." (Again, theists always default to "feelings" and "superstition" ... but they can never present a single fact in support of their beliefs.)

Alan, let's just agree to disagree. Have a good night.

[LesPalenik]

I think artificial legs are great.  But so is a scrambled egg sandwich.  Both keep us alive and able to survive and get on in the world.  But neither provides meaning or purpose to life.

One egg sandwich is relatively harmless, but if you eat them regularly, they can kill you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

One egg sandwich is relatively harmless, but if you eat them regularly, they can kill you.

"Bacon is like women: looks good, smells good, tastes good, but will eventually kill you" 

[Alan Klein]

Very strange! In my short life, I found the exact opposite.
 

God takes the long view.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

I haven't made anything "a god." I believe what I see, what can be measured, what can be counted upon.

You lack the ability to discern the difference. Please revisit the post I made on reason.

Reason to believe, versus no reason to believe.

The reason I believe in science is because, at any time, I can measure, observe, and repeat the same consistent results in any applied science I choose.

You believe in god ... why?
Because your mommy raised you that way?
Because you're scared to step into an insouciant world?
Show me your god. Give me the equation to understand. You can't.

I can spend all day showing you the advents of science ... while you can't spend one second showing me a god.

I am not "alone" or "scared." (Again, theists always default to "feelings" and "superstition" ... but they can never present a single fact in support of their beliefs.)

Alan, let's just agree to disagree. Have a good night.

If you were to lose a child, God forbid, how would science help you by measuring anything?  How does science help you measure how to live a moral and meaningful life rather than one that's  "red, in tooth and claw"?  It's not what's in your brain that counts, but rather in your heart.  Science has no heart. 

[Ray]

Worse, he doesn't even understand what science is.

If that were true, I'd have no reason to doubt the claimed 97% consensus about impending, catastrophic, human-induced, climate change. My observations, during conversations with highly qualified scientists of various disciplines, and those who have little or no education in science, is that the scientists tend to express much more skepticism about the claimed anthropogenic causes of our current warming than those who have little understanding of the methodology of science.

In order to rationally question the 'reported' degree of certainty about the significance of human-induced climate change one needs at least a basic understanding of the scientific methodology.

97% of scientists on earth, who live by this methodology, agree that the facts indicate climate change is a problem ... and that we humans are its cause. The 3% of scientists who don't are on somebody's payroll.

I've never seen any scientific evidence that supports that view. The following pdf of a survey conducted by the 'Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency' tends to arrive at a conclusion that less than 50% of all scientists agree that human induced CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming.

That mankind's activities have at least some effect on climate is perfectly reasonable. That it will have a catastrophic effect is unscientific alarmism.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

All scientist, with possibly very few exceptions, are on somebody's payroll. Those working in the field of Climatology tend to be on some Government's payroll. There's always some degree of pressure to conform to the view of climate alarmism because such alarm is the reason the climate Research Centres have been set up and continue to be funded.

It's quite reasonable to imply that some of the scientists working in the fossil fuel industries will tend to be biased, because that's where their financial security lies. But it's very unscientific to assume that those scientists whose financial security depends on continuing employment in the government-funded climate research centres, and also depends on their chances of getting promotion in the research centres, are not biased.

I would expect there are many scientists over the years who have resigned from such climate research centres for ethical reasons, because of biased attitudes they have observed among their colleagues.

Here's a report which addresses this issue, although it's a bit dated, and might even be biased.   
http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

And here's a list of a few scientists with their names and qualifications mentioned, who disagree with the alarmist mantra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[JKoerner007]

If you were to lose a child, God forbid, how would science help you by measuring anything?

My malevolent universe mandates 'only the fittest survive,' instructing that untimely death due to disease/mistakes is a perpetual reality we all face, including children.

The logic of my belief system is as blatant as the illogic of yours.

In fact, please explain how does your 'all-good, loving, caring god' even allow people's children to die, including the faithful's?

How does science help you measure how to live a moral and meaningful life rather than one that's  "red, in tooth and claw"?

Very simple, there are basic laws of conduct that can be followed to your profit ... or can be violated to your detriment.

The human virtues are these laws (Industry, Frugality, Honesty, Justice, Sincerity, etc.).

The inexorable nature of these truths operates outside of "faith" or "belief"; they are simply facts (consequences) of life.

For example, if I work hard, save money, am always fair and honest with you, then I will build trust in the relationship. That's just the way it works.

On the other hand, if I am lazy, always blowing money, always coming to you for a handout, and I deceive you every chance I get--never honoring  my obligations--I will pretty much destroy the relationship. Again, that's just the way it works.

These truths, these consequences of either following (or violating) the human virtues, will obtain whether I "believe" in them or not.

The truth is, gods are not needed for people to see and appreciate "moral conduct."

Educating people regarding the facts of human virtues (and their lack), and forming a personal dedication to living in alignment with them, is all that's required.

It's not what's in your brain that counts, but rather in your heart.  Science has no heart.

On the contrary, religion has no brain.

It is actually scientists who have both the brains and the heart to study sleeplessly until they learn and discover new methods of disease prevention ... until they create inoculations ... until they possess a better our understanding of the earth, its climate, and how best to deal with the challenges of human/industry waste in an ever-growing population, trying to minimize harm to our planet by developing better methods.

Religious people do what? Go to church. Undermine science? Read an old book as their map of life, while they get rid of the EPA?

To me, religion is harmful precisely because it tries to "explain things" based on the same worn-out stories, the same "fear of purgatory," the same baseless, UNprovable material. It prevents mental growth, indeed makes people fearful of growing mentally.

Religious remedies aren't even remedies. Essentially religion can only offer "magic thinking" (supplication, "praying for a miracle") ... versus science, which offers reason-based analysis and the application of factual-based solutions.

Make no mistake: every positive life-affirming advancement which you enjoy today, including health care, the computer you're typing on, the cameras/lenses you utilize, your telephone, all of your electronics, (literally, everything) has come from science and its perpetual endeavor to understand, and make better, our world. That's what I call loving.

Nothing even remotely comparable has ever come from religion. (If anything, religion causes wars, MISunderstanding, vitriolic hatred, the cover-up of scientific truth, etc.)

Study history for a moment, and you will see people are always brought together through science; whereas they are invariably divided by religion.

I will conclude my thoughts on this thread by asking you to pay close attention to the following:

All leading scientists of the world understand each other, essentially agree with each other (including with regard to climate change), and BUILD off of the work and advancements of those before them. It doesn't matter where they were born; they are in concert with each other. That, in and of itself, should demonstrate the truth and reason behind the sciences.

By contrast, NO religious leaders can agree on anything. They "attack" non-believers, either directly, figuratively, or by isolation/ostracism.  The fact that no religious leaders, anywhere, can agree on the basic precepts of each other's doctrines should, in and of itself, demonstrate the lack of truth and reason behind the religions.

You can call religion 'loving' if you want, but to me it is anything but.

The habit of believing 'because you want to,' without a solid reason to believe, is a pathology, not a virtue.

My last $0.02

Jack

[Alan Klein]

Be well, Jack.

[Ray]

All leading scientists of the world understand each other, essentially agree with each other (including with regard to climate change), and BUILD off of the work and advancements of those before them. It doesn't matter where they were born; they are in concert with each other. That, in and of itself, should demonstrate the truth and reason behind the sciences.

That certainly doesn't seem to be true regarding specific issues, such as anthropomorphic climate change. There may be a very general agreement about the benefits of science and the broad methods of scientific enquiry and its methodology.
However, the problem is that all data has to be interpreted and very often the same data can quite rationally be interpreted differently by different scientists according to their own understanding and knowledge of the subject, and according to their own biases.

When the subject of enquiry lends itself to repeated experimentation within short periods of time, as in a laboratory under controlled conditions, it then becomes easier to get a consensus of opinion because one can demonstrate that a predicted change always results from the same specific action, whilst keeping everything else the same. Any scientist who disagrees can falsify the theory by conducting his own experiments.

Unfortunately, the Earth cannot be placed in a laboratory, nor can an accurate model of the Earth be created. Also climate change takes several decades before a meaningful trend can be identified as being separate from the normal swings of weather patterns such, as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO which occurs irregularly about once every 3 to 6 years, and normal variations of temperature from year to year.

Dr Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University explains the situation quite clearly during a US Senate Inquiry into the issue of climate change. The following video of the Senate enquiry is rather long, but well-worth watching for those who are interested in alternative interpretations. Of course, certain non-scientists and those lousy scientists who are fixed in their views and are only interested in opinions that confirm their biases, will probably not be interested. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

For the benefit of those who don't know who Dr Don Easterbrook is, the following quote is from Wikipedia.

"Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years. He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University."

[Alan Klein]

Ray, it would be helpful if you could you sum up Easterbrook's main points.  Thanks. 

[Ray]

Alan,
The mains points as I remember them are similar to the arguments that I've been presenting recently in these threads on Lula. In no particular order, I'll mention the significant points made in the video as I remember them, with some of my own comments. If you want a shorter summary, the beginning of the video lists the major points on a board. There are also lots of graphs shown in the video but the fine detail is not clear due to the low resolution of the video.

A lot of politics has been projected into climate science in recent decades which causes a bias which the news media supports. As we should all know, the news media thrives on bad news, or news of alarming events. Reportage of such events greatly outnumber positive events.
For example, if a glacier has been observed to be melting or receding somewhere, the news media will eagerly report it. If another glacier elsewhere is observed to be growing, the media will likely not report such a finding, presumably because doing so would diminish the alarm factor of the news about melting glaciers.

Easterbrook makes the point that there's nothing unusual or alarming about such events because climate is always changing, in very small cycles of a few decades, in bigger cycles of a few centuries, and even bigger cycles of several millenia. The last Ice Age peaked about 21,000 years ago.
During the past 10,000 years, temperatures have been mostly higher than current temperatures. Easterbrook claims that since 1480 AD there have been 20 periods of global warming and cooling which cannot be related to CO2.

Easterbrook finds it very doubtful that such tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is no more than a trace gas at 400 parts per million, could be a major factor in driving climate.
I've noticed myself that some people attempt to counter such an argument by using flawed analogies like 'small increases of poisonous substances such as strychnine can have seriously bad effects on human health and even kill you, so why should small increases in CO2 not have an equally bad effect on our planet?'

The reason why such counter arguments are flawed is because CO2 is not a poisonous substance to begin with, whereas strychnine is. CO2 is actually essential for all life and there's a lot of evidence that shows that increases in CO2 levels, far beyond current levels, result in significant increases in plant growth.

Easterbrook makes the point that the records show an inconsistent correlation between CO2 levels and changing temperatures. He gives the example of certain periods of warming and cooling during the 20th century. Between the two world wars, from 1915 to 1945, there was a global rise in temperature which correlated with a modest increase in CO2 levels. However, from 1945 to 1975, which was a time when rises in CO2 levels became greater as a result of rapid economic growth, global temperatures actually fell during that 30 year period. Then from 1977 to 1998 temperatures began rising again, in correlation with rising CO2, after which there was a pause.

He also makes the point, which I have made previously in this thread, that the geological records shows that CO2 rises usually follow temperature rises. In other words, CO2 rises do not appear to cause temperature rises. It's the other way round. Temperature rises appear to cause CO2 rises. Rarely is there is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature, and in any case, correlation does not mean 'cause'.

Another significant point that Easterbrook makes is that the temperature records are continually being amended by NASA and other climate organizations in such a way as to reduce the temperature readings of the past and/or to increase the temperature readings of recent times. By doing this they are able to claim that certain heatwaves in recent times are the hottest on record.

It's interesting to note that the latest IPCC report admits there is low confidence in a global increase in droughts, and hurricanes, but states there is high confidence in an increase of heat waves and the number of record high temperatures, which could be explained by Easterbrook's comment that climate organizations are interfering with, or adjusting the past temperature records. However, this testimony from Easterbrook to the US senate preceded the latest IPCC report.

There are other major points that Easterbrook makes, such as the observed increase of ice at the antarctic in recent times, and that the geological record shows that the antarctic has always been very stable for millions of years despite periods that were much hotter than today.

I could go on and on, but I recommend you watch the video. There is also another interesting video, linked below, of a testimony to the US Senate from Dr Roger Pielke and Dr Roy Spencer, which is more recent. Pielke refers to the latest IPCC report in his comments, which are perhaps more moderate than Easterbrook's comments in the earlier testimony to the US Senate.

Roy Spencer is an interesting character. The Senate surprised him by questioning him on his views on evolution, which has nothing to do with climate change. I guess they were concerned that his views on Evolutionary Theory might be seen by some people to affect his reliability as a scientist. His objection to the theory of evolution seems to relate mostly to the origins of the first forms of life. The most basic RNA and DNA molecules are too complex to have occurred by chance in a soupy sea, he claims, therefore an Intelligent Creator (not necessarily a God) is a better explanation, in his view.

(In other words, a superior intelligence who manipulates the situation in the soupy sea so that the most primitive forms of life, consisting of millions of atoms joined in a precise sequence, emerges. Perhaps this is a bit like the interference of 'climate change organisations' in the soupy sea of the past temperature records, manipulating the data in order to create a scare about today's claimed temperature records.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w

P.S. I forgot to mention one other significant point made by Easterbrook. Polar Bears. It's so often claimed by the alarmists that melting sea ice in the Arctic is causing a gradual extinction of the polar bear. Easterbrook makes the point that dwindling numbers of polar bears, observed during past decades, were due to over hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers.  After such hunting was regulated or banned by Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR, the populations of polar bears began increasing.

From the 'IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group':

"Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers."

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for the summary Ray.  All very interesting.

[Farmer]

The purpose of life is easy.  It's to live.