When the Rev. James Merritt wants to talk about the environment, he does what any good Baptist preacher would do. He picks up the Bible.
“The first assignment that God gave to Adam was to take care of the Garden,” said Merritt, who was president of the Nashville-based Southern Baptist Convention from 2000-02. “As far as I know, that job has never been revoked.”
While most Christian ministers agree that human beings are to care for creation, they disagree on the details. That’s especially true about the topic of global warming.
Well, why should we expect Christian leaders to be united on this when scientists are still divided, and becoming more divided day by day?
[blockquote]
[url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25369920-11949,00.html]People aren’t to blame for climate change, says Professor Ian Plimer[/url]
OUTSPOKEN academic geologist Ian Plimer says people are embracing his latest book on the science behind climate change because they are “disenfranchised” and increasingly frustrated with the “selective evidence” being presented about global warming.
The professor of mining geology at Adelaide University this morning launched Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science.
Professor Plimer told The Australian he had spent more than three years looking at the science behind climate change, concluding that too much emphasis had been placed on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in scientific modelling, and the world’s warming should not be blamed on increased human activity.
“The evidence that we hear in public is very selective, the evidence that I give is comprehensive,” the earth scientist said.
“When you look at the selective evidence, then there’s a chance that you might be frightened about the end of the world.”
“When you look at the comprehensive evidence it just says the planet changes all the time.”
Professor Plimer said climate change scientists and advocates such as former US Vice President Al Gore pushed a political line, rather than an “integrated view of the planet”.
“Al Gore is a Hollywood sensation and he’s trying to make money out of scaring people witless and he does it very well,” he said. “He’s pushing the politics of one side of climate.”
Speaking after the launch, Professor Plimer said others, such as 2007 Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, had only looked at a “small body of evidence”.
In his own book, Professor Plimer has looked at 80 factors affecting climate change. It has been on sale since Monday and has begun it’s third print run of 5000.[/blockquote]
One more before I sign off for the night:
[url=http://boards.msn.com/thread.aspx?ThreadID=1050253]Founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman’s testimony before Congress. [/url]
[blockquote]
[i]Excerpts:[/i]
Here is what I know as scientific fact: There is no significant man-made global warming or climate change at this time, there has not been any in the past and there is little reason to fear any in the future.
I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably expected to occur in the future.
The science behind this current global warming, man-made climate change commotion, has failed to verify. The hypothesis that our carbon footprints produced by our use of fossil fuels is producing a significant greenhouse effect that will lead to climate calamity has failed to verify. So I repeat, there is no significant man-made global climate change.
I have studied the research papers of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and examined the science presented by Al Gore in his books, his movie and his power point. I have traced the history of the development of the concept of carbon dioxide in the exhaust from our cars, power plants and industrial plants entering the atmosphere and interacting with the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor, to magnify warming. It all collapses into a failed theory when examined with scientific care.
There is solid scientific evidence that by burning fossil fuels our civilization increases the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere. However, even after 150 years of burning fossil fuels, CO2 remains a tiny trace gas. To be precise only 380 molecules out of every one million are CO2. Scientists with an anti-fossil fuel agenda developed a theory of radiative forcing to explain how this trace gas could create runaway greenhouse warming. They put that theory into general circulation computer models. Their models then projected a continuous rapid rise in global temperatures year after year. In the 1980s and 1990’s the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed.
But in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not happening. There is no significant warming from CO2.
My advice to the National Park Service and the Subcommittee is: Do nothing to mitigate man-made global warming or climate change, because there is none. Reject the extremist agendas and concentrate on your wonderful work protecting our natural resources and making natural experiences available to us citizens of today and generations to follow.[/blockquote]
Follow the link and read the whole thing. It’s fascinating.
Good night.
Jim Elliott
Florida
Thanks, Jim. Really, what the argument is about is a set of computer models that rely on a large set of assumptions. Change the assumptions, change the outcome. We indeed should be responsible stewards of God’s creation, but that does not automatically mean stampeding off to every trendy environmentalist saltlick.
More importantly, scripture calls us to a sober evaluation — of ourselves in the event, Romans 12:3, but also of the world around us. A sober evaluation of the global warming issue produces hundreds of scientists more qualified than i to declare that whatever global warming might be occurring is almost entireley unrelated to human activity.
[blockquote]
A sober evaluation of the global warming issue produces hundreds of scientists more qualified than i to declare that whatever global warming might be occurring is almost entireley unrelated to human activity. [/blockquote]
But thousands who declare that it is.
Certainly some people take political advantage of global warning. But the scientists who deny it is happening, or that humans aren’t contributing to it, are a very small minority.
#5 – “Certainly some people take political advantage of global warming. But scientists who deny it is happening, or that humans aren’t contributing to it, are a very small minority.” Please present evidence to back this up. Thanks.
“Please present evidence to back this up.”
Recent study specifically on this question: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
General overview of the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Yes, but part of the reason is that many scientists who dissent from the ‘party line’ on Human Caused Global Warming were censored from publication and many even lost positions and funding in research and academic institutions. Others had their work ‘edited’ to present their findings in such a way as to appear to support HCGW. Peer-reviewed publications and journals refused to publish scientific papers that disagreed with the ‘consensus’. The fact that many of the scientists from almost every scientific field and from many diverse countries are speaking out against the ‘consensus’ are doing so in non-academic and non-peer reviewed sources (such as directly to the internet) is quite telling and, unfortunately, this gives the false impression that they are not ‘serious’ scientists. Or at least that’s what the HCGW side alleges (along with snide insults like “they are in the pocket of ‘Big Oil'” and calling them ‘deniers’ to discredit their research). But they ARE speaking out.
So to say “most agree” is really disingenuous, and is not based on a true representation of data. Sort of like HCGW itself.
From the testimony above, from John Coleman:
[blockquote]It all collapses into a failed theory when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with PhDs, have signed a statement debunking [i][human caused][/i] global warming.[/blockquote]
That’s right, it’s a [i]vast conspiracy[/i].
Here’s another cite:
[blockquote]A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” (Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change) [/blockquote]
” In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with PhDs, have signed a statement debunking [human caused] global warming.”
Har har har. Tell me another one.
OK maybe that was a little too flip. I assume Coleman (who has no scientific credentials by the way) is referring to the Oregon Petition. The claim has been thoroughly debunked. A few of the highlights (or lowlights):
* The text of the petition does not purport to “debunk human caused global warming”. It merely says the Kyoto treaty is unwise and that there is no evidence of imminent catastrophic global warming. One could agree with the Oregon Petition and still believe that anthropogenic global warming is real.
* The claim of “34,000 scientists, 10,000 with PhD’s” is absurd on its face, since a PhD is generally a minimum requirement for being considered a scientist at all. There could be rare of exceptions of people who could be considered true scientists without PhDs, but not tens of thousands. And in fact, the vast majority of signers of that document do not claim to be scientists of any type.
* Of the signers who do claim to be scientists the vast majority have credentials that are not in any field related to climate change.
* Of the signatures attributed to actual climate scientists, many are dubious. See for example: “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
In sum, John Coleman is a liar, and those who accept his wild assertions at face value without checking them out are fools.
Sorry, botched the link, which was supposed to be to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Frankly, I’m glad to see evangelical clergy stepping up to the plate in recognizing mankind’s impact on global warming.
Regarding the scientific community’s understanding of the human impact on global warming … tgs wrote: Please present evidence to back this up.
In reference to Tgs request I ask (rhetorically) … how much more evidence is needed? Of course the answer is an emphatic, “NO MORE! We’ve had plenty enough already.” Why a simple google of reliable nonbiased sources will give you an avalanche of scientific documentation regarding mankind’s impact on global warming. Sufficient evidence has been presented over and over and over … and yet there is always someone who asks for it again, and again, and again. But, ultimately what’s the point? Simply asking — especially perpetually — for evidence already presented in plenteous supply doesn’t keep the debate open. Sometimes there just aren’t two equal sides … and there is no real debate. This is one of those times.
As for John Coleman — someone on the flip side of this debate — he is a TV weatherman in San Diego. Right after pooh-poohing academia and all the other “elites” … he will tell you that he relies on his own feelings — he “just knows” … he’s done a lot of readin’ — over scientific evidence. Interestingly, his own, self-touted, greatest invention, the Weather Channel, does its best to distance itself from him … and very much disagrees with Coleman’s assessment that mankind isn’t impacting global warming.
But … it’s a free country … and every one is entitled to his/her point of view. Perhaps one day the media will learn … not all sides in a matter deserve equally serious attention. But for now they put a bit too much effort into being “fair and balanced” to all sides … whether that side is credible or not.
Frankly, given the extraordinarily short supply of credible scientists on this flip side of this argument — in the referenced report claiming thousands … barely a few dozen have credentials that make the grade — I sincerely wonder what might cause one to stick with the naysayers who cry global warming just ain’t a happenin’. I find myself asking … might this be a spoof thread much as one would find at the website Landover Baptist Church? Sadly it isn’t … and minds are unlikely to be changed.
As for Coleman … the scam isn’t global warming … it’s the man himself.
Wouldn’t it be nice if people were just as concerned about their Christ footprint as their carbon footprint?
Of course, the evidence is secondary to the vitriol and insults to prove that human cause Global Warming is true. After all, who decides what is or is not “reliable nonbiased sources”? Oh, right, YOUR side. If someone disagrees then of course they are “unreliable, biased sources”, right? And so what if Coleman, a meteorologist who FOUNDED the Weather Channel, and geologist Ian Plimer use their scientific training and experience when we can rely on Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio’s vast celebrity status instead.
And oh, I’m sure statements like “John Coleman is a liar, and those who accept his wild assertions at face value without checking them out are fools” advances the debate. Insults and smears won’t convince anyone, only open debate will.
What about Richard Lindzen, Climate physicist S. Fred Singer, Bjorn Lumborg, Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain, Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes of the Netherlands, Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, Dr. Richard Courtney climate and atmospheric science consultant in the U.K., Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa, and over 400 more in 2007, publicly deny human cause for Global warming!
Are all these people ‘quacks’ and fools, and unqualified to speak on the subject?
[i]and every one is entitled to his/her point of view. Perhaps one day the media will learn … not all sides in a matter deserve equally serious attention. But for now they put a bit too much effort into being “fair and balanced†to all sides … whether that side is credible or not. [/i]
Not until a full debate is allowed. If sufficient evidence is available (and I assume in your opinion overwhelming), then why is the Human Cause side so fearful of OPEN DEBATE, which is central to the scientific quest for truth? There should be nothing to fear if they are assured of coming out on top. Instead debate has been squelched. Remember the words of Denis Diderot who reportedly said, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth”? Evidently not where Global Warming is concerned. There the person with the loudest mouth and biggest vocabulary of insults wins the day. I sure hope not!
As long as people of this caliber disagree with the consensus, and debate is squelched, I, for one, will not just meekly bend over and say, whatever the government wants to do in forms of taxes and fees and restrictions of carbon footprints is fine for me. I want PROOF that what they are doing will help and not hinder.
Jim Elliott
believer in the Natural cycle theory of climate change.
*[url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 [/url]
Daniel, (post 15)
I agree!
JE
Oh, and First Family,
No one is claiming that climate change is “not happening”. It’s the CAUSE that is being debated.
I sure wich there was an ‘edit’ feature on this forum. I’d like to update my post #17:
[urlhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7]U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims[/url]
and
[url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3]Inhofe Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming [/url]
whre there are 700 publicly, there are more who are not speaking out because of fear of reprisals, loss of funding and hostile editors:
[blockquote]Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.†In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.â€[/blockquote]
libraryjim,
I believe the debate has ocurred, over the span of the last few decades, and scientific consensus has emerged. I’m not sure why you’re so angry about it. And you’ll not none of us has appealed to Al Gore as a reputable source of scientific knowledge, so you can lay that strawman aside.
Because my electric rates are going to go sky high, as will oil prices, and coal companies will go bankrupt (a campaign promise of Barak Obama) due to ‘cap and trade legislation’ currently up for vote. All for no reason.
And no, the debate has NOT occurred, there is NO consensus, and besides, scientific truth is not decided by consensus anyway.
I’m all for environmental responsibility and stewardship of the earth, and alternate forms of energy development, but not based on faulty science, and hinging on an unproven, contested THEORY.
I’m angry because I don’t like being lied to, and I don’t like Christians jumping on a bandwagon that may very likely prove false, and thus giving another black eye to the Church. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can be just as morally damaging as doing the wrong thing for the right reason. (I think C. S. Lewis said that, but I also heard it more recently and I don’t remember where!)
Read my links. there is some eye-opening facts there that dispel the notion of ‘consensus’.
Some quotes:
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.†– Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke,
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.†– Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland
“As long as the causes of the many climate changes throughout the Earth’s history are not well understood, one cannot unequivocally separate natural causes from possibly man-made ones. The so-called scientific consensus discourages healthy debate between believers in global warming and skeptics. There has never been a UN-organized conference on climate change where skeptics were invited for the sake of balance to present their case,” –Dr. Chris Schoneveld,
and on and on and on.
[blockquote]I believe the debate has ocurred, over the span of the last few decades, and scientific consensus has emerged[/blockquote]
You may believe it all you like. I don’t believe it. I believe debate has been quashed. Just look at the news stories last week when Al Gore testified. An expert flown in to counter his argument was not allowed to testify by the democrats. Typical of what’s been happening over the years.
Libraryjim wites: I sure wich there was an ‘edit’ feature on this forum. I’d like to update my post #17
I too wish there were an edit feature … so you and I are in full agreement on that one.
You can click “Preview” to look at your post, and you can edit it, clicking “Preview” as many times as needed until it looks good, and then press “Submit.”
Yeah, but once you click “Submit” that’s it. Other forums do have an edit feature, so you can add or change (such as adding the closing bracket to an url link) without ‘cluttering’ up the thread line with multiple entries.
Some have a time limit, where you can change an entry for up to 15 minutes after original posting.
Other forums don’t have this. It all depends on the server settings, I guess, but I don’t know the mechanics of it all. My html coding skills are pretty much on the basic – intermediate levels. This is clearly ‘advanced’!
Peace
Jim Elliott