Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Forgot to include the cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Nothing new here, all been posted & bantered about before. Now wait for why only climate scientists have the know-how to have an opinion while astrophysicists and a number of other disciplines do not.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

This has come up many times before, and I don't recall the phrase "God is in control of the climate" as being part of the Declaration. Your interpretation perhaps? Spencer has also specifically addressed this, and said he doesn't necessarily ascribe to all of it.....

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

In July 2006, the Cornwall Alliance published an open letter in response to Christian leaders of the Evangelical Climate Initiative who had, in February of the same year, expressed concern over man-made global warming, urging legislators to consider a cap-and-trade system, promoting new technology and reducing carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Advisory board member Wayne Grudem was quoted in reply saying, "It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth by doing such ordinary and morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food."[3] The missive was accompanied by "Call to Truth, Prudence and the Protection of the Poor", a paper discussing the theology, science and economics of climate change, doubting if anthropogenic global warming was taking place at all, and describing mandatory emission reduction as a "draconian measure" that would deprive people of cheap energy and hurt the poor.[4][5] The letter was endorsed by over 170 individuals, including atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, palaeontologist Robert M. Carter and former Energy & Environment journal editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.[3]

On December 2, 2009, the Cornwall Alliance issued a statement called "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", in which they declare in list form both "What We Believe" and "What We Deny". The first point from each list is;

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.[6][7]

Prominent signatories of the declaration include climate scientist Roy Spencer, former climatologist David Legates, meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, television meteorologist James Spann, and Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center.[8]

Along with the "Evangelical Declaration", Cornwall Alliance issued "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor".[9] The executive summary of their document states,

The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea – we'll call it "global warming alarmism" – fails the tests of theology, science, and economics.

Ha! So I'm an alarmist, and you're a denier. Suck it up.

[newhaul]

This thread has the record for longest lived . Been here since 07
And still alive

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

looks to me like more than a couple outlier scientists that are not on the agw side of things.

It is, til you list those who are.


Here's an easier task. List the number of scientific organizations who do not accept the findings of AGW (hint: rhymes with "Nero")

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is, til you list those who are.


Here's an easier task. List the number of scientific organizations who do not accept the findings of AGW (hint: rhymes with "Nero")

perhaps my learned friend you should read the whole list again.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is, til you list those who are.


Here's an easier task. List the number of scientific organizations who do not accept the findings of AGW (hint: rhymes with "Nero")

Scientific organizations don't collect the data, do the actual research, and put their names on their published analyses & conclusions. The scientists who make up the organization do. But is the problem that you think that scientific organizations, like corporations, are somehow a distinct entity from the people who own, manage & direct them? Or are you unthinkingly filling in for one of Jack's rote responses while he's away?

Looks like there may just be one or two more skeptics than just SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER & SPENCER. Yet another misleading distortion from you on the actual state of the science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming


Ha! So I'm an alarmist, and you're a denier. Suck it up.

Whatever makes you see the world more simplistically, whether it has any relationship to truth or not.

Spencer, along with most skeptics, have always acknowledged we are having an impact by contributing to warming through our CO2 emissions. He just theorizes that it's subsumed by much more consequential forces we can't control. Don't see how this is all that compatible with "God being in control of the climate," despite you & Allen's desperation to make it so. In any event, it's all besides the point because nobody else has been able to disprove it, regardless of how Spencer or anyone else practices their personal faith.

It's not uncommon for kids growing up in the type of ultra-conservative, ultra-religious environment you described earlier to wind up going to the opposite extreme when they grow up. Still have that article from The Atlantic around?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you have your theory I have mine both have valid points however only one requires people to cough up billions of tax dollars for what their own studies say will do nothing

I don't have a theory. Instead I trust science, not conspiracy theories (no wind and hot hot hot, but that is just weather..)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

For sure the auspices of certain contributions are within a context of helping the community, saving the planet, etc. Either that or completely pathology muckraking (other options exists but far less likely).

Not strange times. People have always done this. I mentioned this in another thread, but even in Slocum's book he references the merchant selling everything at a discount because of the impending comet strike that was to hit the earth. Dreams (night-time) of cataclism have existed through recorded history; Freud and friends have different ideas of why they exist, but nonetheless it's ordinary. In every era people come up with narratives to salve the angst...religion arguably being the most common/universal. "End is near" folks used to routinely hold up signs at sporting events; maybe they outlawed it...but you still have people forming groups planning for the end of times, etc. It's normal to have the existential fears...how we deal with them is what's questionable as to healthy or not.

This dialog is really no different than a religious proselytizer trying to convert (save) the errant non-believer. You can readily change the nouns, verbs, subjects to religious nouns, verbs, subjects...and end up with a "debate" on biblical stories (for example).

When you find yourself to be an uninvested non-believer in a conversation with a highly invested believer...I submit that you're not going to find any success in getting them to see things differently. From your perspective, you're thinking about nachos for lunch, maybe interested in learning about what climate scientists are up to. From the other perspective, it's their duty to save you and everyone immediately. The nachos can wait. No time to parse some illogical stuff contained in the "good book" or scientific literature. Blaphemy. If you walk towards the nacho stand and start recounting the illogical stuff in the science to others in the community...then indeed you are a threat. You're making the world-saver's job that much tougher. This is why they double-down on trying to convert you in the moment. The use of all the psycho-logical terms, here, is evidence of the vehemence in getting you to question your reality (whereas I attempt to use it as a logical explanation to justify what you're witnessing).

What sucks about this from my perspective is that I'm interested in the science (much of it pertaining to sailing and other meteorology-dependent life interests), but you can't have a discussion about the finer nuanced points of the science because of all the latter-day prophets unable to stop proselytizing long enough to discuss the finer details.

Off for nachos.

A brilliant post, imo, on the essential nature of humankind. The "uninvested non-believer" vs. the "highly invested believer" says it all. In my view, the best evidence of this is the dissatisfaction with merely questioning any part of the accepted doctrine, the inability to articulate what should be done, and the complete detachment from the reality of the consequences. Instead, there seems to be this single-minded goal to "convert" wayward souls as you say, so that they can "believe" like they do. Not as a means to an end, but seemingly as an end in itself.

I found it fascinating when it was revealed in prior threads that some of the most diehard skeptics (or deniers for those who prefer) lived on their boats and had lower carbon impacts than the true believers. The irony was priceless, especially when it was made all too clear that this still didn't "count." Why you ask? Because they were not "believers" of course! The similarities to religious beliefs is nothing short of stunning. Not for most who are simply conscientious and genuinely concerned about the issue, but for those who feel vindicated by adding it to their pseudo-political repertoire of moral superiority & righteousness, it's a fascinating (but also disheartening) window into the human mind.

And no, rarely does the discussion get into any finer points. It mostly devolves into the usual "my scientist is better than your scientist" sort of routine, and people piling on their preferred type of "evidence" as if quantity alone will carry the day. It would be interesting, however, how many were actually surprised to see such an extensive (albeit minority) list of scientists who have pushed back on the prevailing doctrine. I do get the sense that some of the angst derives from being told time & again that the issue has been "settled," the debate is "over," and not realizing these pronouncements are mainly coming from politicians, pundits, and the media, and not necessarily the scientists themselves.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

looks to me like more than a couple outlier scientists that are not on the agw side of things.

And among them how many climate scientist? A botanist or electric engineer are as capable to do climate science as any IRS white colar or old trash lady with a shopping cart. LMAO

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

I don't have a theory. Instead I trust science, not conspiracy theories (no wind and hot hot hot, but that is just weather..)

Alaska hot yep you mean like the NOAA reconstructed temperature records from the little ice age during the maunder grand solar minimum ?
When the climate had cooled by 1 -1.5℃ below the current baseline temperature?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And among them how many climate scientist? A botanist or electric engineer are as capable to do climate science as any IRS white colar or old trash lady with a shopping cart. LMAO

the same can be said of the pro agw group.

Heck your beloved Michael Mann is a geology major not a climatologist.
And yet his study they use for the hockey stick graph is in the field of
dendrochronology.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And among them how many climate scientist? A botanist or electric engineer are as capable to do climate science as any IRS white colar or old trash lady with a shopping cart. LMAO

Look at the list again TeddyD., and not just for seeing what you want to see.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And among them how many climate scientist? A botanist or electric engineer are as capable to do climate science as any IRS white colar or old trash lady with a shopping cart. LMAO

I'm not a global warming denier. But climatology is about as simplistic a scientific discipline as it gets. In secondary school and university earth science/meteorology/climatology was for people who liked to drink, smoke dope, and go camping. Not for students with more rigorous drive, fascination with interloping details, higher intellectual acumen, etc.

How about an aeronautical engineer? Someone who designed the most fuel efficient airplane (for a time)? Someone who designed, built, and lived in an uber-efficient home? Someone who designed and built the first private produced man-carrying space ship (and engine)? Designed/built the first plane(s) to fly around the world non-stop without refueling? Maybe he knows something about energy transfers (if you know what that means)?

When you non-scientist climate enthusiasts attack real scientists it's bad for all science. You don't know what you're talking about because you surround yourself with other people who don't know what they don't know. It may be juvenile funny to you, but other people commit their lives to understanding what you can't. A sly joke doesn't earn you membership in the club that you don't have the capacity to join. Just get over it, or go back to school.

[newhaul]

Here is a rather interesting video about arctic sea ice not doing what it is told to do .

None of the ice free predictions have ever come to fruition
https://youtu.be/vwUhJaQVi-M