Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 by Ted Slater on 12/20/2007 at 11:07 AM

The U.S. Senate released a report today proving that there is no "consensus" among scientists on the issue of climate change. These scientists are neither Holocaust deniers nor moonlanding deniers or round-earth deniers, but are legitimate scientists engaged in the scientific process.

(Let me insert here that I am strongly in favor of wise stewardship of the planet. God gave us the responsibility to care for the environment, and those who violate it are expressing a disdain for the Creator. We are to respect that which He lovingly provides us. The reason I'm again bringing up the issue of "global warming" is to challenge our readers to reject fear and to think critically and faithfully, a practice that honors God.)

Below is a list of a few of these scientists, along with their qualifications, and what they have to say about global warming/climate change.

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards:

"First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth":

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007:

"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes:

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number — entirely without merit.... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic:

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? — The Erring Ways of Climatology.

"Day after day, the same mantra — that 'the Earth is warming up' — is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage:

"The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary:

"I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong.... The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D. meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:

"To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007:

"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007:

"We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979:

"Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that 'real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers:

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001":

"The [IPCC] 'Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics:

"The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw:

"We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming — with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy — is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia:

"There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant:

"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be "Excessively Exaggerated" — Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics:

"Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics:

"The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming:

"CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75% of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007:

"Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:

"In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 by Ted Slater on 12/20/2007 at 11:07 AM

The U.S. Senate released a report today proving that there is no "consensus" among scientists on the issue of climate change. These scientists are neither Holocaust deniers nor moonlanding deniers or round-earth deniers, but are legitimate scientists engaged in the scientific process.

(Let me insert here that I am strongly in favor of wise stewardship of the planet. God gave us the responsibility to care for the environment, and those who violate it are expressing a disdain for the Creator. We are to respect that which He lovingly provides us. The reason I'm again bringing up the issue of "global warming" is to challenge our readers to reject fear and to think critically and faithfully, a practice that honors God.)

Below is a list of a few of these scientists, along with their qualifications, and what they have to say about global warming/climate change.

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards:

"First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth":

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007:

"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes:

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number — entirely without merit.... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic:

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? — The Erring Ways of Climatology.

"Day after day, the same mantra — that 'the Earth is warming up' — is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage:

"The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary:

"I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong.... The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D. meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:

"To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007:

"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007:

"We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979:

"Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that 'real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers:

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001":

"The [IPCC] 'Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics:

"The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw:

"We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming — with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy — is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia:

"There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant:

"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be "Excessively Exaggerated" — Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics:

"Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics:

"The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming:

"CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75% of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007:

"Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:

"In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

[1. Denise Morris said the following at 11:10 AM on Dec 20:]

1

Longest post ever!

[2. Brian said the following at 11:19 AM on Dec 20:]

2

The summary of the article is good news to me! I knew there were plenty of skeptics, but to hear that they are increasing in numbers is reassuring! Perhaps we (Christians) can return our collective environmental focus on preserving natural resources and keeping air and water clean!

Ted, do you think you could provide some scriptural support for being good stewards of the earth?

[3. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:07 PM on Dec 20:]

3

We've had global warming--and cooling--long before there was any such thing as a steam engine. This latest example of blowhardery--by Gore and others with big government interests--is shameful at best and an advancement of neocommunism at worst.

[4. Bruce said the following at 12:59 PM on Dec 20:]

4

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

[5. Erica said the following at 1:34 PM on Dec 20:]

5

We don't have to worry or fret that Global Warming will bring a end of this world it will not. The world will end only when Jesus comes the second time. The world was destroyed with water once God promised us it will not happened again. There will be no more flood. Let us have faith in God's word.

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 1:35 PM on Dec 20:]

6

Bruce -- why are you so quick to dismiss the findings of legitimate scientists who are in fields that qualify them to speak on global warming?

And why did you submit outdated information copy-pasted from "Q & A For Climate Skeptics," a document released two years ago that was compiled from the writings of "artificial intelligence engineer" Coby Beck? Hm.

Your comment is a particular good example of refusing to consider the latest evidence, instead demonizing and dismissing those scientists who continue to practice their craft, scientists who refuse to cave in to pressure to stop thinking and just "accept it." They must feel like modern day Galileos and Copernicuses, choosing to pursue truth rather than buckle to pressure from the elite.

I pray most of our readers will continue to consider the evidence, rather than surrender to the tidal wave of anti-scientific fear and hysteria.

[7. Trevor Brophy said the following at 1:57 PM on Dec 20:]

7

Bruce, your comment confirms Ted's point. There is no consensus on Climate Change. There are many trusted scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. On an issue with such far-reaching environmental and economic impacts, we have to be sure that we aren't just listening to the propaganda.

[8. Laura said the following at 2:29 PM on Dec 20:]

8

In the absence of definitive evidence either way (but without sacrificing the pursuit of truth), wouldn't it be wiser to act as if CO2 and other greenhouse gases could cause major climate change? If we don't believe they're responsible for global warming, and it turns out they are, we could be in a lot of trouble. Plus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions has other positive benefits for the environment that are worth the effort (less pollution, more energy-efficient, etc.) whether or not CO2 causes global warming.

[9. Jason Ganzer said the following at 2:34 PM on Dec 20:]

9

What is the point of posting all these anti-global warming quotes? You started off stating you believe Christians are called to be good stewards of the earth, then proceed to lambaste those who believe global warming is real through a serious of numerous quotes opposing it.

What about those that believe it exists? You didn't give them the time of day.

But, all that aside, if you truly believe we are to be good stewards why not write a post about what that looks like rather than try to refute global warming. If that is irrelevant shouldn't we focus on what we are actually called to do?

[10. Patricia said the following at 4:03 PM on Dec 20:]

10

I have to agree with Jason. To be honest, I think global warming probably is happening because the majority of scientists agree it is. Yes, there is a notable minority that dissents, but dissent is a sign of healthy debate among academics. Rather than beat a dead horse (which has been dead for a long, long time) and debate whether global warming is happening, I want to know how I can reduce my consumption in a responsible way. Obviously extreme ideas such as taxing babies are out of line, but unfortunately too many people fail to realize how the out of control consumption many Americans engage in (high heat, large carrs, large houses, throwing away things needlessly, etc) can be change so that we can share our wealth responsibly with those who have less. And it's not because the poor need the rich-it's because the rich need the poor to see Jesus.

[11. Samuel PG said the following at 5:02 PM on Dec 20:]

11

Ted,
I appreciate the great job you do editing Boundless and the vast majority of your blog comments. I do wonder, though, why so many of your blog comments deal with denying global warming? Whether or not it is actually occurring, I do not see how the global warming debate relates significantly to the topics primarily dealt with at Boundless. Perhaps it is my own ignorance that keeps me from seeing the connection, but for now I do wonder about the potential harm of a message being sent that conservative Evangelical Christians are hung up on disproving global warming.

[12. Ted Slater said the following at 5:06 PM on Dec 20:]

12

Jason, you ask, "What is the point of posting all these anti-global warming quotes?"

I didn't. I posted pro-scientific examination quotes.

You write, "What about those that believe it exists? You didn't give them the time of day." To paraphrase a famous talk show how, I'm providing equal time to scientists who, like Galileo and Capernicus, are challenging pop opinion.

I have written on being a good steward. You're right -- I should do that again. I'll try to post something within a few weeks on the topic.

Samuel PG -- I've published a handful of posts on global warming, perhaps 5 out of 250 blog posts I've written so far. I stated my reason for doing so in the first paragraph above: "The reason I'm again bringing up the issue of 'global warming' is to challenge our readers to reject fear and to think critically and faithfully, a practice that honors God."

It's not that I'm trying to "disprove global warming" -- I'm trying to encourage thought about the issue. The scientific process is a wonderful God-inspired tool with which to explore our world, and I want to see our readers appreciate it and engage it. Bruce's comment above shows that far too many people aren't thinking critically about this issue, and are instead copy-pasting (metaphorically, in some cases) old blog posts to defend their scientifically shaky beliefs -- and that distresses me. I think the issue of climate change, and the issues behind it, are extremely relevant to our readers, as shown by the comments shared on these GW-related posts.

Patricia -- if "high heat, large cars, large houses, throwing away things needlessly, etc" were really considered important by global warming alarmists, they'd cut back. Though they try to guilt us into cutting back our lifestyles, they don't. Al Gore's behavior (outrageous home energy use, private jets, large vehicles, etc.) demonstrates that such things are irrelevant to the global warming discussion. If they're not going to cut back, what motivation do I have for doing so? They're revealing that they really don't believe what they're saying. Nobody respects a hypocrite.

FWIW, "consensus" is a political term used to quell discussion, not something typically associated with scientific inquiry.

[13. k. said the following at 5:09 PM on Dec 20:]

13

Bravo, Jason G!

Ted, it's time to quit your kvetching and write something fresh and different for a change. So you don't believe in global warming and I do...big deal. It's time for you to learn how to live and let live.

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 5:25 PM on Dec 20:]

14

K. -- no, I will not stop wrestling with the issue of climate change. It's too significant to stop thinking about it.

Five posts out of 250 is not "kvetching" about this issue. Your petition that I stop writing on it tells me that your deeply held beliefs are being threatened, challenged by what these 400 top scientists are saying. And that's a good thing. ;-)

[15. Patricia said the following at 6:08 PM on Dec 20:]

15

Ted-I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Al Gore or other policy makers advocate from a secular perspective. The point is that Jesus commands to share with those who have less. By reducing our personal consumption, we as Christians can care for the environment in a reasonable way and help the poor. It's what Jesus commands that's why we should do it-not because Al Gore or other hypocrites tell us to.

[16. e said the following at 6:29 PM on Dec 20:]

16

global-warming kitteh say: Ted's post 2 long and migraine-inducing, Ted 2 defensive and reactionary. kitteh no more read. suggest Ted go plan a purity ball or somefin.

[17. Samuel PG said the following at 6:38 PM on Dec 20:]

17

I suppose 2% of your blog posts is not that many, although it somehow feels like the topic appears more frequently. Feelings are no argument against statistics, however, so I apologize for implying that a notable portion of your posts relate to global warming.

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 7:54 PM on Dec 20:]

18

Regarding the kitteh comment....

[19. Nikki said the following at 8:32 PM on Dec 20:]

19

Ted, I know you are furthering discussion and thought on this and I'm definitely not discouraging that...but clearly you fall on a particular side of this issue. What was it that compelled you to believe the "dissent" instead of the majority? How did you make that decision?

Since there clearly IS scientific dissension amongst learned, respected scholars, how can we, who know next to nothing about climatology compared to them, pretend to decide for ourselves? Seriously, we're talking giant corporations and academic institutions here, not just the think-tank of student interns down the street. On the surface, it definitely seems arrogant for any of us to think we can judge and reason better than they who have spent years, and cumulative lifetimes, studying this issue. Certainly, it's good to discuss, engage, and (ahem) explore these ideas. But we shouldn't go around holding views we're not qualified to hold.

So because I have no divine knowledge or formal education that enables me to judge beyond that of respected research and academia (on both sides!), I shall be content to continue doing as I already should be regardless of climate change: being a good steward of my resources.

(And although it's probably just an illusion, it does seem like we've had quite a few articles about this...maybe they've all been relatively recent?)

[20. Jethro said the following at 9:18 PM on Dec 20:]

20

Funny isn't it Ted. There is about 1,000,000 times more evidence for global warming that ID/Creationism, but I don't see you directing us to the work of eminent scientists regarding that little debate. Such as it is.

[21. James said the following at 12:09 AM on Dec 21:]

21

Bravo, Ted!

I've been a GW skeptic for a while now.

One, CO2 is consumed by plants which are involved in then releasing O2.

Also, CO2 is not necessarily an insulator. However, water vapor IS. Just look at the more temperate zones versus a desert zone. The biggest difference is water vapor concentration (humidity). Water vapor TRAPS heat very effectively, thus keeping temps at night closer to the temps during the day. So while a desert heats up quickly, it also cools very quickly b/c it has far less water vapor in the air with which to trap the heat. CO2 does not have this property. Now, trap someone in a room and seal it off it WILL get warm and get full of CO2. But this doesn't prove that CO2 is an insulator, since the person is heating the room by exhaling warm air that happens to have a high concentration of CO2 to O2. So, the room heats up due to the heat expelled, not due to CO2.

What heats the planets that we also know contain lots of green house gasses? Well, let's take venus for example. It's closer to the sun by a good distance, for one, and another it has LOTS of clouds to trap that heat in. It's the clouds, NOT the CO2 that keep that planet's received heat trapped.

So, bravo for posting the skeptics, Ted. I've heard the hype and can't stand it. It's VERY unscientific and incredibly political and many of the so-called scientific academies are playing politics before doing science and it disgusts me as an honest scientist (I'm an engineer.....so more of an applied scientist) to see this. Their grant monies matter more to them than good solid research, so they're willing to tow the line of those feeding them the grant checks. Sick. They'll sell their honesty and integrity for money. Can't say I'm surprised, though. It's very unregenerately human to do that.

[22. Chris said the following at 5:44 AM on Dec 21:]

22

Hey Ted,

Great post. Christians really need to lead the way with this issue and not just blindly follow the media or government funded and controlled IPCC. Promoting discussion is vital.

[23. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:32 AM on Dec 21:]

23

Way back at the top Brian asked for Scriptural support for being good stewards of the earth.

Brian,
I'm going to just throw out some phrases, a couple hours with Bible gateway and you'll be an expert on the topic and can find the references.

First, "The earth is the Lord's, and all that is therein." Everything belongs to God, it isn't ours, it isn't nobody's, but God lets us use it. If Ted loaned me his car, he would expect me to be a good steward (not break the windows, key the doors, not change the oil, etc), God has similar expectation for how we care for His earth (don't erode the soil, pollute the air, poison the water, etc).

Adam was commanded to go and "subdue" the earth. The scholars I've read on the topic explain that subdue is not referencing the cruel subjugation of a tyrant, but the competent management of a good overseer who seeks to improve that in his care which is not his.

Christ frequently talked about giving an account for our actions. While this was often about spiritual or relational matters, he said we will be asked to account for how we used EVERYTHING that was given us. That includes the earth we live on.

Finally, although it was specific to the people of Israel, Mosaic law prescribed very environmentally conscious farming practices that if followed will never deplete the soil of a region. So God had in interest in preserving that which He created. Also, in Proverbs it says that a righteous man is kind to his animal. Animals are a part of creation, and if we are to treat them well, then we should treat the rest of creation well.

[24. Ted Slater said the following at 9:01 AM on Dec 21:]

24

Robert J Espe -- excellent response. You've identified some Scriptural evidence that we're not to abuse "all this" for our own selfish pleasure. Beyond specific biblical references, I think the attitudes of our hearts should motivate us to care for the environment. We should be *grateful* for what the Lord has given us. We should have *thankful* hearts to God for His generosity in providing us with good things, things that are pleasant to the sight and good for food. When we eat a meal, we should not take the plant or the animal for granted, but thank God for the food and the ability to enjoy that food. I think the Indians were on to something when, after they killed a deer (for example), they'd bend down on one knee and humbly express thanks for the life of that deer, and for the food it would provide them. A thankful heart does not abuse what it's received. Instead, it cares for what it's been given. "All this" is a gift from God, and we should be thankful for it, and consequently care for it. Abusing "all this" is an indication of thanklessness. Of course, we're to hold both *truth* and *love* in high esteem -- attempting to practice *love* in regards to the earth with disregard for the *truth* (as GW alarmists encourage) is foolishness.

I just felt like writing a superlong paragraph. Imagine your own paragraph breaks. :-)

[25. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:47 AM on Dec 21:]

25

Ted, you said: "why are you so quick to dismiss the findings of legitimate scientists who are in fields that qualify them to speak on global warming?"

Could I ask you the same thing?

Because, while there are individual dissenters, I've yet to find any scientific group that has explicitly stated that it does not concur with the idea that humans are causing GW. Bruce posted a list of organizations that DO concur, and though the list may be two years old (and therefore outdated?), I'm pretty sure these organizations still hold those positions.

So, I guess, by the definition I've seen here, there is no consensus that GW is being caused by humans, because there are dissenters. Alright, fine. There is no consensus on human-caused GW, but on one side there are dozens of respectable scientific organizations who are willing to put their reputations on the line because this is something they strongly believe is happening, and on the other side there are some dissenters.

But, Ted, you have nothing to be worried about. After the Bali conference, it's clear that the governments in Canada and the US have no interest in doing much to stop GW. Both countries won "Fossil of the Year Award" for lack of willingness to do anything to combat climate change.

[26. Ariel G. said the following at 11:10 AM on Dec 21:]

26

Ted,
Bravo for tackling this issue! I want to echo James' comments regarding the position of many academics today in the debate on global warming. I am a researcher at a Research I University and several academics here express regular concern over the condition of research in peer reviewed journals. The peer review process is considered, in academic bastions, the most rigorous and therefore the most respected of all publishing venues. However, the modern day "publish or perish" mentality means that each year thousands of articles are published in peer reviewed journals in the hard sciences alone. This enormous amount of published material means that many studies are simply duplicates of prior studies rather than 'original' research. (In the cancer industry alone, this has had some alarming consequences).

In addition, given the copious amount of published research to date many studies need a small army of researchers simply to read and review all the studies available on a given topic. I can attest to the shortage of resources for grad students to do this reading, as well as the limited amount of time that many professors and scientists have to keep up with current publications. While some do so with integrity and real determination, this is not always the case.

In addition, there is a very strong need for what has ubiquitously come to be referred to "external funding" which means that researchers are given promotion and tenure for gaining federal, corporate, and/or organizational monies in order to do research on a topic at a particular university or medical school. The obvious problem with this is that those companies and organizations invariably have particular agendas regarding the findings of studies that will promote their products. Findings that do not promote their products are routinely suppressed in final write-ups and publication.

Ted, you are pointing out some important things here that we as Christians need to think about, such as: 1) how much "external funding" influence should be tolerated given that this research is used to persuade the public? 2)how much of the corporate and organizational support of research is then extended to those political/celebrity figures who will be the voice for what amounts to 'shaped' findings? (Meaning that the research, standing alone, might not persuade a public given to questioning, so a powerful voice is needed to convince people of what might be considered questionable findings standing on their own).

[27. Esther said the following at 11:21 AM on Dec 21:]

27

As with faith in Christ, acceptance of a viewpoint that requires active responses, such as the enviromentalist/global warming debate creates strong emotional reactions.
I could make many of the same arguments about my acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior:

There are many experts who share my faith, and many respected and noteworthy individuals who deny it.

Should I live as though I believed, even if I'm not convinced, just in case I'm wrong?

So many people have argued about this over the centuries, and I'm just a normal person, how could I ever know enough to be convinced one way or another?

Yet, I believe that many individuals reading this blog have sorted through the issues, weighed the options, listened to the opinions, and finally, truly met and developed a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. Because, in the end, He is real, regardless of how many people claim otherwise. You can tell me that it is just my opinion, "my belief", and that your "belief" is different, but just as valid. And I will pity and pray for you. It isn't just a belief issue either, it inherently directs and forms who a person is and how they live.

There is a similarity to the global warming debate in this. Yes, it is a debate, but there is a basic reality behind it. Our earth is a wonderfully created, infinitely complex system. There are many things that aren't understood about how it functions. So we have experts who have devoted their lives to studying it. Some of them think they have some answers, other disagree with those conclusions. That doesn't mean that there isn't truth to be had. So we can't just walk away and say, "let's just get along, even if we disagree".

If mankind is causing dangerous global situations, then yes, we should change some things. It is the responsibility of thinking people to consider the evidence, seek out truth and then take action to live a consistent life. I have respect for those who feel that they don't want to be a drain on the environment, and choose to live off the grid in a wigwam in the woods, on their own energy and ingenuity. I do object to politicians and environmentalists trying to create rules that will cost taxpayers millions, with only questionable evidence of benefit. Personally, I would rather take action on clearly visible pollution and destruction, rather than arguable future damage.

[28. kman said the following at 11:43 AM on Dec 21:]

28

Nikki said:

-But we shouldn't go around holding -views we're not qualified to hold.

Let's see where that bit of reasoning goes.

Do you hold a religious view? You're not qualified if you're not a theologian.

Do you make economic decisions? You're not qualified if your not an economist.

Do you vote for a politican? You're not qualified if you're not a politician.

You get the idea.

We make decisions on what we can best determine is true, using the methods and reasons we think are best. We all have opinions and beliefs that we aren't "qualified" to hold. It shouldn't stop anyone from having a particular view. It's a basis for evaluating information.

[29. farmer Tom said the following at 11:54 AM on Dec 21:]

29

I don't have time now, but later I will attemp to show some of you how your mindless following of the GW hoax directly affects how Christians are to fulfill their mission to share the gospel message as well as be good stewards of God's creation.

A hint, God gave each of you a brain. Failing to use it to the best of our ability's is as much a lack of stewardship as throwing steak out to the wolves.

It also involves freedom, freedom is a distinctly Christian philosophy.

[30. Nikki said the following at 1:55 PM on Dec 21:]

30

kman: sorry, I should have used a better choice of words. I meant something like "we shouldn't go around promoting things we're not qualified to." It's not that people can't have opinions, but an opinion held with no backing shouldn't be given the time of day. And clearly Ted's position has backing; I'm just wondering why he picked that one...since they BOTH have support.

[31. kman said the following at 5:31 PM on Dec 21:]

31

Nikki:

I can see where people would give weight to a person who is trained in a particular field. Obviously a meteorologist's opinion is more informed than Ted or mine in regards to GW.

I think what you're asking is how do you determine which of the trained individuals to listen to? And is truth determined by consensus of opinion? And at what point do you trust that decision?

Your question is a philosophical one and not directly connected to GW. It's a good question to ask as only you are going to be able to answer it and only you are responsible for the answer you arrive at.

[32. John said the following at 8:55 PM on Dec 21:]

32

Andrew,

"Respectable organizations"? They're government financed organizations. They are as biased as you or me. An organization can be just as wrong as a human, sometimes more so. Ever heard of group think?

Putting their reputations on the line is exactly what the dissenters are doing, NOT the establishment organizations.

Why do people believe that "scientists" or "scientific organizations" are some how these "holy" "pure" people that only produce perfect results (studies or opinions)? People who believe sinful unbiblical philosophies (evolution, GW) will easily accept evidence that supports their shaky beliefs, and just as quickly rebut contrary evidence.

Such individuals would do well to head Ariel's post, as well as common sense.

The other irony is that these people that believe GW actually think they're on the same level as Christians. We know that it is not true. I know NON-Christians who know it's not true!

This is not a competition of opinions. Ted and the rest of us who know the truth are trying to enlighten you, point out the fallacies in your logic, and basically bring you into the light.

You non-thinking GW believers are not on par with us, you're terribly wrong to believe what you believe. It's not a matter of equally valid beliefs competing for people's hearts and minds. Like all unbiblical, sinful beliefs and biblical truth, it is a battle between good and evil, truth and a lie. The devil is not equal in power to God.

The GW fear machine is sinful and damaging to God's creation. The "solutions" to a non-existent problem will hurt God's creation, his planet and humans. (Both rich and poor)

Amazing how the very ends that are touted to justify the ridiculous means of unbiblical beliefs end up being exactly opposite of what is touted!

Well said Esther.

[33. John said the following at 10:38 PM on Dec 21:]

33

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071221/ts_csm/obiotruck

[34. John said the following at 10:40 PM on Dec 21:]

34

We should all be focusing our attention on something that is real and we can affect:

http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/Zach_Hunter_122107.aspx

[35. John said the following at 2:18 PM on Dec 24:]

35

Make sure your Christmas lights are environmentally friendly and you dispose of your tree in an environmentally friendly manner, too.

I hear Santa is going green this year...he fed the deer corn!

[36. John said the following at 7:03 AM on Dec 26:]

36

Now, the magi are coming.

We know that cows and horses are worse for the environment then SUV's, but what about camels?

[37. Bethany D. said the following at 12:41 AM on Dec 27:]

37

Ted - the kitteh picture is sooo cute!

As to GW: I'm on the fence here since I can see both sides of the debate (though I appreciate your giving time to the less-often-reported dissenting scientist). I figure that it's more important to make environmentally friendly choices in general than to zero in on just one purported problem. "Reduce, reuse, recycle" and "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" are examples of lifestyles that are good for the environment whether or not GW is a threat - and they're great for your wallet!

[38. Nat said the following at 8:50 AM on Dec 27:]

38

I don't know how much is spent annually to mitigate CO2 output. (Although I reckon gathering thousands of people together for conferences like the one in Bali has to cost millions to finance.) Depending on which expert you look at, the economic costs of global warming vary immensely, as do the costs of implementing CO2 reduction measures- although all reach or exceed billions of dollars.
But my point is that if we want to directly help poor people, cutting CO2 usage is not the best way to go about it. Much of the environmental degradation worldwide is caused by poor people trying to make a living in difficult conditions- for example African nomads overgrazing the Sahel, Lao farmers performing slash and burn agriculture or fishermen overharvesting mangrove swamps in West Africa.
I think that helping these poor people, living in marginal environments and with marginal (at best) opportunities for survival better fulfills our Christian responsibilities than any amount of carbon footprint reduction or global conferencing ever could. Sure, it won't reduce the impact of global corporations or corrupt governmental officials, but it would have benefits. First, we would be directly helping some of the world's poorest people and their families survive. Secondly, if we help poor nomads manage their herds and conserve their forage, if we help Lao farmers into alternate means of agriculture, and if we find alternate ways for African fishers to provide for their families we can directly slow- possibly even mitigate- environmental damage in these areas. Why should we spend (collectively) billions of dollars on a threat we do not fully understand and which we are not certain we can adequately address while ignoring the urgent and concrete crises so many of the world's very poorest people are facing?

[39. Ted Slater said the following at 9:47 AM on Dec 27:]

39

Nat -- I appreciate your thoughtful approach, and agree with you.

It troubles me that some people just don't want to be helped, or are inhibiting our being able to help. Those in the country of, say, Zimbabwe, the former "bread basket of Africa," for example. Or the people of North Korea who are literally starving. How can we best help residents of a country whose leaders bear responsibility for those residents' woes?

That's really an entirely different thread from this one, hm?

[40. JB said the following at 1:58 PM on Dec 27:]

40

Nat,

I don't know that the decision calculus is that easy. All the things you mentioned are great ideas, of course, and should be pursued, but that doesn't itself rule out the need to reduce carbon emissions. If the climatologists who believe in anthropogenic global warming are correct and if it is possible to avert or ameliorate the effects of that warming, then spending money in that direction could have the greater impact. For example, if you had to choose, it would be better to spend money to prevent the flooding of Bangladesh than to teach Bangladeshi farmers sustainable agricultural methods. The decision will always have to go back to the science and how we want to deal with risk. There was a book recently about how Dick Cheney argued to other members of the administration that if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then that risk would be enough to justify a war. If we were to apply Cheney's 1% doctrine to global warming, it seems to me we'd have to make reducing carbon emissions a top priority.

[41. John said the following at 9:42 PM on Dec 27:]

41

Okay girls and boys, PLEASE FOLLOW THE BOUNCING LOGIC CAREFULLY!

CO2 EMISSIONS D-O N-O-T C-A-U-S-E T-H-E E-A-R-T-H T-O W-A-R-M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh, why is this so difficult to grasp?

CO2 levels rise AFTER temperture rises, NOT the otherway around!

Methane people, methane is what you seek.

KILL ALL THE COWS.

[42. John said the following at 5:03 PM on Dec 28:]

42

This may help people understand what ultimately helps the poor AND the environment AND what doesn't help:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CanInvestorsGreedSaveAfrica.aspx

[43. Paul said the following at 7:11 PM on Dec 28:]

43

It's a little unfortunate that Ted's first post plays skeptical sound-bites against alarmism. It's actually quite difficult to find the science behind the Senate report (most of their links appear to have been harvested from newspaper stories, letters to newspaper and magazine editors, and blogs, which in my book is inexcusably lazy for an official government report), but then I also understand that Al Gore's film may make heavily exaggerated claims and be a little light on actual science. Under the circumstances, we could be forgiven for our trouble in making sense of either argument (and argument is the correct term, because in many circles this has become more of an argument than a useful scientific discussion).

For those who have asked for a discussion of the science supporting climate change, I've found this summary from the UK Met Office useful:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html
It discusses the science, admits some of the flaws in current models, and attempts to avoid making political statements, while remaining fairly readable by those of us that are not experts. Some bits are specifically relevant to the UK, but I hope the rest is useful to Boundless readers in the US.

Can anyone offer a similar scientific overview of the skeptical side of the debate please? I would be really interested to see such a document, because I don't think I've come across anything (other than resurfacing debunked myths) that goes beyond the sound-bites level.

[44. Ted Slater said the following at 10:30 PM on Dec 28:]

44

Paul -- you say that it's "actually quite difficult to find the science behind the Senate report."

I provided 24 examples of responses from legitimate, peer-approved scientists who insist that their research findings are contrary to what the proponents of anthropogenic global warming posit. There are hundreds of additional scientific responses.

You go on to write, "I also understand that Al Gore's film may make heavily exaggerated claims and be a little light on actual science." May have? The British courts have found that he in fact *did* exaggerate his claims on numerous occasions.

OK, let's put Al Gore against these 400+ scientists. This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning. This man doesn't even have a degree at all related to climate change, and yet he's the mouth piece for the movement. And so many people would prefer to put their faith in Al Gore than in legitimate scientists who are calling for a calm, scientific exploration of the data regarding climate change.

You characterize these scientists as holding a "skeptical side of the debate." No, these scientists are holding a scientific side of the debate. Isn't that what science is, after all? Examining the evidence, proposing a hypothesis, and then testing against it? We shouldn't be politicizing science the way Al Gore et al. are doing, using terms like "consensus" and "skeptical." The stakes for our liberty and way of life are too high to politicize the research.

I appreciate your weighing in. Please don't take my passion for this subject as an insult to you. I honestly don't mean it as that. We'd probably be best friends if you didn't live on the other side of the Atlantic. ;-)

[45. Jethro said the following at 12:55 AM on Dec 29:]

45

"OK, let's put Al Gore against these 400+ scientists. This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning."

And Einstein was a patent clerk and Ramanujan was a clerk at the Port Office. What's your point?

[46. Ted Slater said the following at 1:16 AM on Dec 29:]

46

Jethro -- Einstein earned a degree in physics. Ramanujan studied mathematics at Cambridge. Both of them received formal education in their area of expertise. The same cannot be said of the opportunistic Al Gore. He earned an undergrad degree in being a politician, and that's all.

Of course, when it comes to science, one's education should be fairly irrelevant. We should not trust in names, but in the legitimacy and veracity of scientific findings. Even if those findings go against popular opinion. Even if the elite say that there's already a "consensus," and that we should stop considering evidence that indicates otherwise.

I'm actually encouraged by your resistance to the "appeal to authority" argument, Jethro. I'm encouraged that you're more impressed with facts than with diplomas.

[47. Jeremy said the following at 3:02 AM on Dec 29:]

47

"I'm encouraged that you're more impressed with facts than with diplomas."

The point so many here are trying to make, though, is that the Christian distrust of global warming seems to come much more from a pre-conceived notion than from facts. Most of us are not well-educated enough in this field to have any basis for evaluating claims made by either side. Therefore, we look to experts in the field. A majority of experts are on one side (that global warming is in large part caused by humans), with a smaller group of experts on the other.

What you are doing, Ted, is choosing which experts to listen to based on what you had already decided. Quotes like "No, these scientists are holding a scientific side of the debate." (with the obvious implication that the scientists on the majority side are somehow non-scientific), and your ad hominem attacks on Al Gore show quite clearly that your mind was made up long ago, and I think this is sadly true of many people on both sides of the debate.

[48. John said the following at 11:35 AM on Dec 29:]

48

Jeremy,

What's sadly true is that you don't know what an "ad hominem" attack actually is.

Jeremy, Ted did not do that, sorry, but you are welcome to try again next time.

You however have committed a logical fallacy that neither Ted nor anyone, Christian or otherwise, should commit and that is an appeal to authority.

Use logic and common sense, not experts.

When done correctly and properly you too can know the truth.

Athroprogenic global warming=wrong
Cow dung=true cause

KILL ALL THE COWS!:)

[49. Jeremy said the following at 12:44 PM on Dec 29:]

49

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

"This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning."

None of these points have anything to do with the argument about global warming. This is a textbook case of an ad hominem argument. And, indeed, Ted tries to have it both ways by continuing with "Of course, when it comes to science, one's education should be fairly irrelevant. We should not trust in names, but in the legitimacy and veracity of scientific findings." The reason he must add this proviso is obvious -- most scientists agree with the man who got 5 Fs in divinity school.

-------------------------------------

In reference to the fallacy of appeal to authority, I quote again:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

Appealing to authority is not a logical fallacy in general; it is a fallacy if and only if the source in question is not an authority. Appealing to the claims of specific scientists (those who have poured their lives into studying this material) is not the fallacy of appealing to authority, it is instead humbly recognizing authority. I can certainly study, I can try to evaluate the evidence, but I (and all of us here) should recognize that my untrained "logic and common sense" are probably not sufficient to completely understand an incredibly complex scientific issue.

But this is all beside the point; almost everyone reading this agrees that appealing to authority is valid (indeed, that is what Ted was doing in his original post). The question is instead which authority to appeal to. Ted seems to feel comfortable accepting the minority opinion precisely because it is in the minority, and thus he sees those scientists as somehow of necessity braver and more truthful than their counterparts on the other side of the fence. I do not. I recognize that the minority opinion could be right, but it makes no sense to me to adopt it merely for that reason. That is why I have to conclude that Ted's mind was made up before he read this article.

[50. Jethro said the following at 9:59 PM on Dec 29:]

50

Ted,

"The opportunistic Al Gore"

Boy, you have an incredible ability to read people. Clearly you have a personal dislike of the man. I think it's clouding your judgment. But gee I admire you for taking a swing at someone who doesn't have the benefit of reply.

Second. So what if his degree is in government? Why is it a 'mere' degree? Are government degree's worth nothing? Can Al Gore not acquire knowledge in areas other than his undergraduate study? On which note, what was your degree in Ted? Was it the science of global warming? Was it theology? Why should anyone listen to you on either topic?

[51. John said the following at 10:32 AM on Dec 30:]

51

Jeremy,

Read your own definitions before you try to prove a point, because you make yourself look silly when you don't.

You tried using the definition of ad hominem to validate your claim that
Ted commited that logical fallacy, when in fact that definition shows exactly why Ted's arguement does NOT fall into that category.

Key word: "irrelevant" Ted's points are very relevant. Sorry. But hopefully you understand logic a little better now. You might need a new text book.

Now your second defition is simply incorrect. Appeal to authority IS a logical fallacy in general, not simply if the authority is in actuality not authoritative.

You're explaination commits another logical fallacy, I'll let you try to figure out which one it is.

Sorry, but you're wrong again about Ted's intentions. His original post is to show that there are infact SCIENTISTS who indeed do not believe the sinful pseudo science of anthropogenic global warming, BECAUSE so many AGW believers want to characterize people who don't believe as non-scientific backwards religionists.

HE'S POINTING OUT THE VERY FALLACY THAT PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING, APPEALING TO AUTHORITY AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

One more time, it does not matter how expert or authoritative the authority is, he could still be wrong.

That's why God gave us a brain that uses common sense and logic to see through "complex" scientific issues.

Happy New Year!

[52. John said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 30:]

52

Jeremy,

Oh, I forgot to mention. Your definition of the fallacy of appeal to authority, though wrong, would prove what you think Ted is saying (though he's not), that people are appealing to an authority that is not authoritative.

Funny how that works.

[53. JB said the following at 2:11 PM on Dec 30:]

53

So a couple weeks ago, I tried to post a comment which criticized the scientific credentials of some of the scientists Ted quoted above. He declined to allow the comment saying that he didn't want to get into a debate about credentials because then people might say mean things about the scientists and people on the other side like Al Gore. Since we've apparently crossed that bridge, I'll try again.

Many of the scientists listed in the report are not "prominent" climatologists or even in some cases, scientists at all. For example, Richard Courtney works for a coal trading publication and is a spokesperson for a coal miners union. Others listed in Sen. Inhofe's document are largely funded by oil interests, such as Kelvin Kemm who runs the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Still others are scientists, but not climatologists. David Wojick has a PhD in the Philosophy of Science and has published nothing in a peer-reviewed journal on climate change.

This is relevant because Sen. Inhofe is claiming that there are many reputable scientists who have researched this area who disagree with global warming. The quality of their credentials go right to the heart of the point of this paper. If there are fewer than 400 reputable, qualified scientists who disagree with global warming, that proportionately weakens the case against a global warming consensus. If you want to evaluate this report, I would encourage you to do a little research into the scientists who are quoted here. I think you'll find a surprising number of them are not well-qualified independent climatologists.

[54. John said the following at 2:32 PM on Dec 31:]

54

"I think you'll find a surprising number of them are not well-qualified independent climatologists."

Which is exactly what can be stated about the IPCC and Al Gore.

But, again, as clearly stated already, even if the AGW crowd were "well-qualified independent climatologists" that does not mean that they are speaking the truth.

The logical fallacy? APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. There are lots of books out there about logic to help ya all. Pick up one and learn.

In the mean time, have fun trying to figure out your methane footprint.

[55. Paul said the following at 4:48 PM on Dec 31:]

55

Ted,

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate it. I also appreciate your warm tailpiece. The internet is a stark emotionless place, and I'm sure we would disagree in quite an amicable friendly way in person (as is my intention here).

I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was precisely that Al Gore is a bad source for those seeking science that supports global warming, in exactly the same way that skeptical headlines and soundbytes are a bad source for those looking for science that supports the opposite view. Interestingly a lot of those complaining about Al Gore's film support that theory of man made climate change (including, so far as I can tell at least one of those you cite), and I agree with them that we are influencing climate change, but the way Al Gore presents it is not great. As you are aware of the British court ruling, perhaps you should note the judge's comments that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate", but that there were 9 significant "errors" of alarmism and exaggeration that required correction whenever the film was used in an educational context. Or in other words, the general scientific principles of the film are correct, the presentation of them goes too far.

You might imagine at this point that I'm one of those people I have described as "seeking science that supports global warming". Actually the opposite is true. I've seen more than enough to convince me. I'd actually like to see some of the science on the other side of the debate if it is actually out there, so that I have the choice of reading and rejecting it or revising my view accordingly.

I have no doubt that the 24 quotes you presented from the senate report are taken from authors of peer reviewed journal articles. My problem is that as they stand they are just headlines or soundbytes about isolated, disconnected ideas. How should I respond to theories that I have seen discounted with good reason elsewhere, or claims that are not backed up with evidence, while others are offering me a coherent and near conclusive science? Please tell me what I should do with advice like "The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system" if I am not given access to those "important facts". I want to see some of the actual science that sits behind those quotes. Where is the data, the graphs of past trends and future climate predictions, with the reasons for them. I've offered a systematic summary of the UK Met Office's position. Please, please, please find me a similarly rigorous and readable summary of the other side of the debate, because I can't find it. In its absence I have no other rational option, but to assume the argument against human influenced climate change simply doesn't stack up.

[56. John said the following at 4:54 PM on Jan 1:]

56

Paul, read much about slavery these days.

No. Then it must not be a problem, right?

Your logic about AGW is just as wrong as you would be if you used the same logic about slavery.

Sorry, but the "scientific" "facts" that you say lead you to your conclusion are more unscientific falsehood than you think.

[57. John said the following at 5:22 PM on Jan 1:]

57

Paul, here's another one for ya.

I'm sure you constantly hear about the melting polar ice, right?

Well, did you also know that the south pole is showing record ice growth?

No? Didn't think so. Could it be that the powers that be don't want you to know that? Hmmm, could be:)

[58. John said the following at 5:52 PM on Jan 1:]

58

Paul et al.

Here ya go. Listen to the logic, hear it sing!

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/12/100-prominent-scientists-disagree-with.html

[59. Ted Slater said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 1:]

59

Paul -- what many of these scientists have done is found that the research supporting AGW is invalid or has been falsified or has been exaggerated.

I'm not sure what tests/studies they could do to *prove* that humans are *not* responsible for climate change; they are, however, showing that the studies proving AGW are untrustworthy. The "hockey stick" theory, for example -- something used by some (including the IPCC) to support their believe in AGW -- has been proven false due to flawed methodologies. Let me encourage you to spend some time at that site -- some fascinating, eye-opening discussions.

I appreciate your continued interest in this topic, Paul. It's fun to explore what we believe and why we believe what we believe.

[60. obewan said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 19:]

60

We can dispute the reality of GW until the cows come home, but the potential savings to be had in simple conservation and good stewardship of the Earth's resources can not be denied.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative has posted some "success stories" about people who are both saving energy and reducing pollution. The churches are of special interest because the Lord's work can always use more money. The best story is as follows:

To care for creation as well as the bottom line, Hebron Baptist Church in Dacula, Georgia, implemented a program to replace inefficient lighting. After receiving almost a thousand new energy-efficient lamps, their monthly loan payment for the new lighting was approximately $1,300, but their utility bill savings were over $2,700 per month.

The results:

Annual Savings: $32,000

Annual Energy Savings: 450,000 kWh

Pollution Prevented: 1 million pounds of global warming pollution per year.

For other "success stories" visit the Evangelical Climate Initiative website
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/success

[61. Jeff said the following at 2:35 PM on Feb 19:]

61

Thanks, obewan! Finally something I think we can all agree on!

[62. Ted Slater said the following at 3:48 PM on Feb 19:]

62

obewan -- I checked out the site. It's great that a church is saving money. I commend them for being able to use their financial resources wisely.

But talk about an arlarmist Web site. Keep in mind that we're talking about a change in temperature of less than a degree fahrenheit over the course of a century. Yes, I wrote that correctly: One degree. One hundred years.

And this one degree -- from 75 degrees to 76 degrees, for example -- is causing droughts and killer "heat waves." Right. It's also causing freak snow storms in the Middle East and unprecedented cold waves in India.

That site claims that CO2 is "the main greenhouse gas or global warming pollutant." That's factually incorrect. Water vapor is the main "greenhouse gas." If this site can't even get the most simple fact right, how am I supposed to trust them in other areas?

And that they consider greenhouse gases to be "pollutants" is bewildering. If we got rid of all such "pollutants," our global temperature would plummet 60 degrees fahrenheit to -2 degrees. Brrr!

The site says that "80-90 million poor people could be at risk of hunger and malnutrition" because of this 1-degree temperature increase per century. No, with more CO2 and water vapor and a slight rise in temperature, crops may very well grow more abundantly. We'll actually feed *more* people if the temperature goes up a bit and there's more of the stuff -- CO2 -- that plants "breathe" and more of the stuff -- water -- that refreshes them.

Humans love to get all worked up over something. Global warming is just the latest fad. Evidence is actually arising that we'll be experiencing global cooling over the coming decades. And people will freak out about that. People are people.

I can already hear the complaints against me: "Ted wants to rape the planet and pollute the air and water and waste resources at the expense of those around him!" If you believe that I believe that, then you're *completely* misunderstanding my convictions on behalf of truth and faith.

[63. Phil said the following at 2:32 AM on Aug 3:]

63

Just wanted to say bravo Ted, nice to read a rational thought out statement. Maybe you should get into the whole "Humans only account for almost 3 percent of CO2." Of that 3 percent only about half a percent can we do anything about. Most CO2 comes from dying plants, Volcanos, and livestock...yes livestock.

[1. Denise Morris said the following at 11:10 AM on Dec 20:]

1

Longest post ever!

[2. Brian said the following at 11:19 AM on Dec 20:]

2

The summary of the article is good news to me! I knew there were plenty of skeptics, but to hear that they are increasing in numbers is reassuring! Perhaps we (Christians) can return our collective environmental focus on preserving natural resources and keeping air and water clean!

Ted, do you think you could provide some scriptural support for being good stewards of the earth?

[3. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:07 PM on Dec 20:]

3

We've had global warming--and cooling--long before there was any such thing as a steam engine. This latest example of blowhardery--by Gore and others with big government interests--is shameful at best and an advancement of neocommunism at worst.

[4. Bruce said the following at 12:59 PM on Dec 20:]

4

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

[5. Erica said the following at 1:34 PM on Dec 20:]

5

We don't have to worry or fret that Global Warming will bring a end of this world it will not. The world will end only when Jesus comes the second time. The world was destroyed with water once God promised us it will not happened again. There will be no more flood. Let us have faith in God's word.

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 1:35 PM on Dec 20:]

6

Bruce -- why are you so quick to dismiss the findings of legitimate scientists who are in fields that qualify them to speak on global warming?

And why did you submit outdated information copy-pasted from "Q & A For Climate Skeptics," a document released two years ago that was compiled from the writings of "artificial intelligence engineer" Coby Beck? Hm.

Your comment is a particular good example of refusing to consider the latest evidence, instead demonizing and dismissing those scientists who continue to practice their craft, scientists who refuse to cave in to pressure to stop thinking and just "accept it." They must feel like modern day Galileos and Copernicuses, choosing to pursue truth rather than buckle to pressure from the elite.

I pray most of our readers will continue to consider the evidence, rather than surrender to the tidal wave of anti-scientific fear and hysteria.

[7. Trevor Brophy said the following at 1:57 PM on Dec 20:]

7

Bruce, your comment confirms Ted's point. There is no consensus on Climate Change. There are many trusted scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. On an issue with such far-reaching environmental and economic impacts, we have to be sure that we aren't just listening to the propaganda.

[8. Laura said the following at 2:29 PM on Dec 20:]

8

In the absence of definitive evidence either way (but without sacrificing the pursuit of truth), wouldn't it be wiser to act as if CO2 and other greenhouse gases could cause major climate change? If we don't believe they're responsible for global warming, and it turns out they are, we could be in a lot of trouble. Plus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions has other positive benefits for the environment that are worth the effort (less pollution, more energy-efficient, etc.) whether or not CO2 causes global warming.

[9. Jason Ganzer said the following at 2:34 PM on Dec 20:]

9

What is the point of posting all these anti-global warming quotes? You started off stating you believe Christians are called to be good stewards of the earth, then proceed to lambaste those who believe global warming is real through a serious of numerous quotes opposing it.

What about those that believe it exists? You didn't give them the time of day.

But, all that aside, if you truly believe we are to be good stewards why not write a post about what that looks like rather than try to refute global warming. If that is irrelevant shouldn't we focus on what we are actually called to do?

[10. Patricia said the following at 4:03 PM on Dec 20:]

10

I have to agree with Jason. To be honest, I think global warming probably is happening because the majority of scientists agree it is. Yes, there is a notable minority that dissents, but dissent is a sign of healthy debate among academics. Rather than beat a dead horse (which has been dead for a long, long time) and debate whether global warming is happening, I want to know how I can reduce my consumption in a responsible way. Obviously extreme ideas such as taxing babies are out of line, but unfortunately too many people fail to realize how the out of control consumption many Americans engage in (high heat, large carrs, large houses, throwing away things needlessly, etc) can be change so that we can share our wealth responsibly with those who have less. And it's not because the poor need the rich-it's because the rich need the poor to see Jesus.

[11. Samuel PG said the following at 5:02 PM on Dec 20:]

11

Ted,
I appreciate the great job you do editing Boundless and the vast majority of your blog comments. I do wonder, though, why so many of your blog comments deal with denying global warming? Whether or not it is actually occurring, I do not see how the global warming debate relates significantly to the topics primarily dealt with at Boundless. Perhaps it is my own ignorance that keeps me from seeing the connection, but for now I do wonder about the potential harm of a message being sent that conservative Evangelical Christians are hung up on disproving global warming.

[12. Ted Slater said the following at 5:06 PM on Dec 20:]

12

Jason, you ask, "What is the point of posting all these anti-global warming quotes?"

I didn't. I posted pro-scientific examination quotes.

You write, "What about those that believe it exists? You didn't give them the time of day." To paraphrase a famous talk show how, I'm providing equal time to scientists who, like Galileo and Capernicus, are challenging pop opinion.

I have written on being a good steward. You're right -- I should do that again. I'll try to post something within a few weeks on the topic.

Samuel PG -- I've published a handful of posts on global warming, perhaps 5 out of 250 blog posts I've written so far. I stated my reason for doing so in the first paragraph above: "The reason I'm again bringing up the issue of 'global warming' is to challenge our readers to reject fear and to think critically and faithfully, a practice that honors God."

It's not that I'm trying to "disprove global warming" -- I'm trying to encourage thought about the issue. The scientific process is a wonderful God-inspired tool with which to explore our world, and I want to see our readers appreciate it and engage it. Bruce's comment above shows that far too many people aren't thinking critically about this issue, and are instead copy-pasting (metaphorically, in some cases) old blog posts to defend their scientifically shaky beliefs -- and that distresses me. I think the issue of climate change, and the issues behind it, are extremely relevant to our readers, as shown by the comments shared on these GW-related posts.

Patricia -- if "high heat, large cars, large houses, throwing away things needlessly, etc" were really considered important by global warming alarmists, they'd cut back. Though they try to guilt us into cutting back our lifestyles, they don't. Al Gore's behavior (outrageous home energy use, private jets, large vehicles, etc.) demonstrates that such things are irrelevant to the global warming discussion. If they're not going to cut back, what motivation do I have for doing so? They're revealing that they really don't believe what they're saying. Nobody respects a hypocrite.

FWIW, "consensus" is a political term used to quell discussion, not something typically associated with scientific inquiry.

[13. k. said the following at 5:09 PM on Dec 20:]

13

Bravo, Jason G!

Ted, it's time to quit your kvetching and write something fresh and different for a change. So you don't believe in global warming and I do...big deal. It's time for you to learn how to live and let live.

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 5:25 PM on Dec 20:]

14

K. -- no, I will not stop wrestling with the issue of climate change. It's too significant to stop thinking about it.

Five posts out of 250 is not "kvetching" about this issue. Your petition that I stop writing on it tells me that your deeply held beliefs are being threatened, challenged by what these 400 top scientists are saying. And that's a good thing. ;-)

[15. Patricia said the following at 6:08 PM on Dec 20:]

15

Ted-I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Al Gore or other policy makers advocate from a secular perspective. The point is that Jesus commands to share with those who have less. By reducing our personal consumption, we as Christians can care for the environment in a reasonable way and help the poor. It's what Jesus commands that's why we should do it-not because Al Gore or other hypocrites tell us to.

[16. e said the following at 6:29 PM on Dec 20:]

16

global-warming kitteh say: Ted's post 2 long and migraine-inducing, Ted 2 defensive and reactionary. kitteh no more read. suggest Ted go plan a purity ball or somefin.

[17. Samuel PG said the following at 6:38 PM on Dec 20:]

17

I suppose 2% of your blog posts is not that many, although it somehow feels like the topic appears more frequently. Feelings are no argument against statistics, however, so I apologize for implying that a notable portion of your posts relate to global warming.

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 7:54 PM on Dec 20:]

18

Regarding the kitteh comment....

[19. Nikki said the following at 8:32 PM on Dec 20:]

19

Ted, I know you are furthering discussion and thought on this and I'm definitely not discouraging that...but clearly you fall on a particular side of this issue. What was it that compelled you to believe the "dissent" instead of the majority? How did you make that decision?

Since there clearly IS scientific dissension amongst learned, respected scholars, how can we, who know next to nothing about climatology compared to them, pretend to decide for ourselves? Seriously, we're talking giant corporations and academic institutions here, not just the think-tank of student interns down the street. On the surface, it definitely seems arrogant for any of us to think we can judge and reason better than they who have spent years, and cumulative lifetimes, studying this issue. Certainly, it's good to discuss, engage, and (ahem) explore these ideas. But we shouldn't go around holding views we're not qualified to hold.

So because I have no divine knowledge or formal education that enables me to judge beyond that of respected research and academia (on both sides!), I shall be content to continue doing as I already should be regardless of climate change: being a good steward of my resources.

(And although it's probably just an illusion, it does seem like we've had quite a few articles about this...maybe they've all been relatively recent?)

[20. Jethro said the following at 9:18 PM on Dec 20:]

20

Funny isn't it Ted. There is about 1,000,000 times more evidence for global warming that ID/Creationism, but I don't see you directing us to the work of eminent scientists regarding that little debate. Such as it is.

[21. James said the following at 12:09 AM on Dec 21:]

21

Bravo, Ted!

I've been a GW skeptic for a while now.

One, CO2 is consumed by plants which are involved in then releasing O2.

Also, CO2 is not necessarily an insulator. However, water vapor IS. Just look at the more temperate zones versus a desert zone. The biggest difference is water vapor concentration (humidity). Water vapor TRAPS heat very effectively, thus keeping temps at night closer to the temps during the day. So while a desert heats up quickly, it also cools very quickly b/c it has far less water vapor in the air with which to trap the heat. CO2 does not have this property. Now, trap someone in a room and seal it off it WILL get warm and get full of CO2. But this doesn't prove that CO2 is an insulator, since the person is heating the room by exhaling warm air that happens to have a high concentration of CO2 to O2. So, the room heats up due to the heat expelled, not due to CO2.

What heats the planets that we also know contain lots of green house gasses? Well, let's take venus for example. It's closer to the sun by a good distance, for one, and another it has LOTS of clouds to trap that heat in. It's the clouds, NOT the CO2 that keep that planet's received heat trapped.

So, bravo for posting the skeptics, Ted. I've heard the hype and can't stand it. It's VERY unscientific and incredibly political and many of the so-called scientific academies are playing politics before doing science and it disgusts me as an honest scientist (I'm an engineer.....so more of an applied scientist) to see this. Their grant monies matter more to them than good solid research, so they're willing to tow the line of those feeding them the grant checks. Sick. They'll sell their honesty and integrity for money. Can't say I'm surprised, though. It's very unregenerately human to do that.

[22. Chris said the following at 5:44 AM on Dec 21:]

22

Hey Ted,

Great post. Christians really need to lead the way with this issue and not just blindly follow the media or government funded and controlled IPCC. Promoting discussion is vital.

[23. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:32 AM on Dec 21:]

23

Way back at the top Brian asked for Scriptural support for being good stewards of the earth.

Brian,
I'm going to just throw out some phrases, a couple hours with Bible gateway and you'll be an expert on the topic and can find the references.

First, "The earth is the Lord's, and all that is therein." Everything belongs to God, it isn't ours, it isn't nobody's, but God lets us use it. If Ted loaned me his car, he would expect me to be a good steward (not break the windows, key the doors, not change the oil, etc), God has similar expectation for how we care for His earth (don't erode the soil, pollute the air, poison the water, etc).

Adam was commanded to go and "subdue" the earth. The scholars I've read on the topic explain that subdue is not referencing the cruel subjugation of a tyrant, but the competent management of a good overseer who seeks to improve that in his care which is not his.

Christ frequently talked about giving an account for our actions. While this was often about spiritual or relational matters, he said we will be asked to account for how we used EVERYTHING that was given us. That includes the earth we live on.

Finally, although it was specific to the people of Israel, Mosaic law prescribed very environmentally conscious farming practices that if followed will never deplete the soil of a region. So God had in interest in preserving that which He created. Also, in Proverbs it says that a righteous man is kind to his animal. Animals are a part of creation, and if we are to treat them well, then we should treat the rest of creation well.

[24. Ted Slater said the following at 9:01 AM on Dec 21:]

24

Robert J Espe -- excellent response. You've identified some Scriptural evidence that we're not to abuse "all this" for our own selfish pleasure. Beyond specific biblical references, I think the attitudes of our hearts should motivate us to care for the environment. We should be *grateful* for what the Lord has given us. We should have *thankful* hearts to God for His generosity in providing us with good things, things that are pleasant to the sight and good for food. When we eat a meal, we should not take the plant or the animal for granted, but thank God for the food and the ability to enjoy that food. I think the Indians were on to something when, after they killed a deer (for example), they'd bend down on one knee and humbly express thanks for the life of that deer, and for the food it would provide them. A thankful heart does not abuse what it's received. Instead, it cares for what it's been given. "All this" is a gift from God, and we should be thankful for it, and consequently care for it. Abusing "all this" is an indication of thanklessness. Of course, we're to hold both *truth* and *love* in high esteem -- attempting to practice *love* in regards to the earth with disregard for the *truth* (as GW alarmists encourage) is foolishness.

I just felt like writing a superlong paragraph. Imagine your own paragraph breaks. :-)

[25. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:47 AM on Dec 21:]

25

Ted, you said: "why are you so quick to dismiss the findings of legitimate scientists who are in fields that qualify them to speak on global warming?"

Could I ask you the same thing?

Because, while there are individual dissenters, I've yet to find any scientific group that has explicitly stated that it does not concur with the idea that humans are causing GW. Bruce posted a list of organizations that DO concur, and though the list may be two years old (and therefore outdated?), I'm pretty sure these organizations still hold those positions.

So, I guess, by the definition I've seen here, there is no consensus that GW is being caused by humans, because there are dissenters. Alright, fine. There is no consensus on human-caused GW, but on one side there are dozens of respectable scientific organizations who are willing to put their reputations on the line because this is something they strongly believe is happening, and on the other side there are some dissenters.

But, Ted, you have nothing to be worried about. After the Bali conference, it's clear that the governments in Canada and the US have no interest in doing much to stop GW. Both countries won "Fossil of the Year Award" for lack of willingness to do anything to combat climate change.

[26. Ariel G. said the following at 11:10 AM on Dec 21:]

26

Ted,
Bravo for tackling this issue! I want to echo James' comments regarding the position of many academics today in the debate on global warming. I am a researcher at a Research I University and several academics here express regular concern over the condition of research in peer reviewed journals. The peer review process is considered, in academic bastions, the most rigorous and therefore the most respected of all publishing venues. However, the modern day "publish or perish" mentality means that each year thousands of articles are published in peer reviewed journals in the hard sciences alone. This enormous amount of published material means that many studies are simply duplicates of prior studies rather than 'original' research. (In the cancer industry alone, this has had some alarming consequences).

In addition, given the copious amount of published research to date many studies need a small army of researchers simply to read and review all the studies available on a given topic. I can attest to the shortage of resources for grad students to do this reading, as well as the limited amount of time that many professors and scientists have to keep up with current publications. While some do so with integrity and real determination, this is not always the case.

In addition, there is a very strong need for what has ubiquitously come to be referred to "external funding" which means that researchers are given promotion and tenure for gaining federal, corporate, and/or organizational monies in order to do research on a topic at a particular university or medical school. The obvious problem with this is that those companies and organizations invariably have particular agendas regarding the findings of studies that will promote their products. Findings that do not promote their products are routinely suppressed in final write-ups and publication.

Ted, you are pointing out some important things here that we as Christians need to think about, such as: 1) how much "external funding" influence should be tolerated given that this research is used to persuade the public? 2)how much of the corporate and organizational support of research is then extended to those political/celebrity figures who will be the voice for what amounts to 'shaped' findings? (Meaning that the research, standing alone, might not persuade a public given to questioning, so a powerful voice is needed to convince people of what might be considered questionable findings standing on their own).

[27. Esther said the following at 11:21 AM on Dec 21:]

27

As with faith in Christ, acceptance of a viewpoint that requires active responses, such as the enviromentalist/global warming debate creates strong emotional reactions.
I could make many of the same arguments about my acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior:

There are many experts who share my faith, and many respected and noteworthy individuals who deny it.

Should I live as though I believed, even if I'm not convinced, just in case I'm wrong?

So many people have argued about this over the centuries, and I'm just a normal person, how could I ever know enough to be convinced one way or another?

Yet, I believe that many individuals reading this blog have sorted through the issues, weighed the options, listened to the opinions, and finally, truly met and developed a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. Because, in the end, He is real, regardless of how many people claim otherwise. You can tell me that it is just my opinion, "my belief", and that your "belief" is different, but just as valid. And I will pity and pray for you. It isn't just a belief issue either, it inherently directs and forms who a person is and how they live.

There is a similarity to the global warming debate in this. Yes, it is a debate, but there is a basic reality behind it. Our earth is a wonderfully created, infinitely complex system. There are many things that aren't understood about how it functions. So we have experts who have devoted their lives to studying it. Some of them think they have some answers, other disagree with those conclusions. That doesn't mean that there isn't truth to be had. So we can't just walk away and say, "let's just get along, even if we disagree".

If mankind is causing dangerous global situations, then yes, we should change some things. It is the responsibility of thinking people to consider the evidence, seek out truth and then take action to live a consistent life. I have respect for those who feel that they don't want to be a drain on the environment, and choose to live off the grid in a wigwam in the woods, on their own energy and ingenuity. I do object to politicians and environmentalists trying to create rules that will cost taxpayers millions, with only questionable evidence of benefit. Personally, I would rather take action on clearly visible pollution and destruction, rather than arguable future damage.

[28. kman said the following at 11:43 AM on Dec 21:]

28

Nikki said:

-But we shouldn't go around holding -views we're not qualified to hold.

Let's see where that bit of reasoning goes.

Do you hold a religious view? You're not qualified if you're not a theologian.

Do you make economic decisions? You're not qualified if your not an economist.

Do you vote for a politican? You're not qualified if you're not a politician.

You get the idea.

We make decisions on what we can best determine is true, using the methods and reasons we think are best. We all have opinions and beliefs that we aren't "qualified" to hold. It shouldn't stop anyone from having a particular view. It's a basis for evaluating information.

[29. farmer Tom said the following at 11:54 AM on Dec 21:]

29

I don't have time now, but later I will attemp to show some of you how your mindless following of the GW hoax directly affects how Christians are to fulfill their mission to share the gospel message as well as be good stewards of God's creation.

A hint, God gave each of you a brain. Failing to use it to the best of our ability's is as much a lack of stewardship as throwing steak out to the wolves.

It also involves freedom, freedom is a distinctly Christian philosophy.

[30. Nikki said the following at 1:55 PM on Dec 21:]

30

kman: sorry, I should have used a better choice of words. I meant something like "we shouldn't go around promoting things we're not qualified to." It's not that people can't have opinions, but an opinion held with no backing shouldn't be given the time of day. And clearly Ted's position has backing; I'm just wondering why he picked that one...since they BOTH have support.

[31. kman said the following at 5:31 PM on Dec 21:]

31

Nikki:

I can see where people would give weight to a person who is trained in a particular field. Obviously a meteorologist's opinion is more informed than Ted or mine in regards to GW.

I think what you're asking is how do you determine which of the trained individuals to listen to? And is truth determined by consensus of opinion? And at what point do you trust that decision?

Your question is a philosophical one and not directly connected to GW. It's a good question to ask as only you are going to be able to answer it and only you are responsible for the answer you arrive at.

[32. John said the following at 8:55 PM on Dec 21:]

32

Andrew,

"Respectable organizations"? They're government financed organizations. They are as biased as you or me. An organization can be just as wrong as a human, sometimes more so. Ever heard of group think?

Putting their reputations on the line is exactly what the dissenters are doing, NOT the establishment organizations.

Why do people believe that "scientists" or "scientific organizations" are some how these "holy" "pure" people that only produce perfect results (studies or opinions)? People who believe sinful unbiblical philosophies (evolution, GW) will easily accept evidence that supports their shaky beliefs, and just as quickly rebut contrary evidence.

Such individuals would do well to head Ariel's post, as well as common sense.

The other irony is that these people that believe GW actually think they're on the same level as Christians. We know that it is not true. I know NON-Christians who know it's not true!

This is not a competition of opinions. Ted and the rest of us who know the truth are trying to enlighten you, point out the fallacies in your logic, and basically bring you into the light.

You non-thinking GW believers are not on par with us, you're terribly wrong to believe what you believe. It's not a matter of equally valid beliefs competing for people's hearts and minds. Like all unbiblical, sinful beliefs and biblical truth, it is a battle between good and evil, truth and a lie. The devil is not equal in power to God.

The GW fear machine is sinful and damaging to God's creation. The "solutions" to a non-existent problem will hurt God's creation, his planet and humans. (Both rich and poor)

Amazing how the very ends that are touted to justify the ridiculous means of unbiblical beliefs end up being exactly opposite of what is touted!

Well said Esther.

[33. John said the following at 10:38 PM on Dec 21:]

33

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071221/ts_csm/obiotruck

[34. John said the following at 10:40 PM on Dec 21:]

34

We should all be focusing our attention on something that is real and we can affect:

http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/Zach_Hunter_122107.aspx

[35. John said the following at 2:18 PM on Dec 24:]

35

Make sure your Christmas lights are environmentally friendly and you dispose of your tree in an environmentally friendly manner, too.

I hear Santa is going green this year...he fed the deer corn!

[36. John said the following at 7:03 AM on Dec 26:]

36

Now, the magi are coming.

We know that cows and horses are worse for the environment then SUV's, but what about camels?

[37. Bethany D. said the following at 12:41 AM on Dec 27:]

37

Ted - the kitteh picture is sooo cute!

As to GW: I'm on the fence here since I can see both sides of the debate (though I appreciate your giving time to the less-often-reported dissenting scientist). I figure that it's more important to make environmentally friendly choices in general than to zero in on just one purported problem. "Reduce, reuse, recycle" and "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" are examples of lifestyles that are good for the environment whether or not GW is a threat - and they're great for your wallet!

[38. Nat said the following at 8:50 AM on Dec 27:]

38

I don't know how much is spent annually to mitigate CO2 output. (Although I reckon gathering thousands of people together for conferences like the one in Bali has to cost millions to finance.) Depending on which expert you look at, the economic costs of global warming vary immensely, as do the costs of implementing CO2 reduction measures- although all reach or exceed billions of dollars.
But my point is that if we want to directly help poor people, cutting CO2 usage is not the best way to go about it. Much of the environmental degradation worldwide is caused by poor people trying to make a living in difficult conditions- for example African nomads overgrazing the Sahel, Lao farmers performing slash and burn agriculture or fishermen overharvesting mangrove swamps in West Africa.
I think that helping these poor people, living in marginal environments and with marginal (at best) opportunities for survival better fulfills our Christian responsibilities than any amount of carbon footprint reduction or global conferencing ever could. Sure, it won't reduce the impact of global corporations or corrupt governmental officials, but it would have benefits. First, we would be directly helping some of the world's poorest people and their families survive. Secondly, if we help poor nomads manage their herds and conserve their forage, if we help Lao farmers into alternate means of agriculture, and if we find alternate ways for African fishers to provide for their families we can directly slow- possibly even mitigate- environmental damage in these areas. Why should we spend (collectively) billions of dollars on a threat we do not fully understand and which we are not certain we can adequately address while ignoring the urgent and concrete crises so many of the world's very poorest people are facing?

[39. Ted Slater said the following at 9:47 AM on Dec 27:]

39

Nat -- I appreciate your thoughtful approach, and agree with you.

It troubles me that some people just don't want to be helped, or are inhibiting our being able to help. Those in the country of, say, Zimbabwe, the former "bread basket of Africa," for example. Or the people of North Korea who are literally starving. How can we best help residents of a country whose leaders bear responsibility for those residents' woes?

That's really an entirely different thread from this one, hm?

[40. JB said the following at 1:58 PM on Dec 27:]

40

Nat,

I don't know that the decision calculus is that easy. All the things you mentioned are great ideas, of course, and should be pursued, but that doesn't itself rule out the need to reduce carbon emissions. If the climatologists who believe in anthropogenic global warming are correct and if it is possible to avert or ameliorate the effects of that warming, then spending money in that direction could have the greater impact. For example, if you had to choose, it would be better to spend money to prevent the flooding of Bangladesh than to teach Bangladeshi farmers sustainable agricultural methods. The decision will always have to go back to the science and how we want to deal with risk. There was a book recently about how Dick Cheney argued to other members of the administration that if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then that risk would be enough to justify a war. If we were to apply Cheney's 1% doctrine to global warming, it seems to me we'd have to make reducing carbon emissions a top priority.

[41. John said the following at 9:42 PM on Dec 27:]

41

Okay girls and boys, PLEASE FOLLOW THE BOUNCING LOGIC CAREFULLY!

CO2 EMISSIONS D-O N-O-T C-A-U-S-E T-H-E E-A-R-T-H T-O W-A-R-M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh, why is this so difficult to grasp?

CO2 levels rise AFTER temperture rises, NOT the otherway around!

Methane people, methane is what you seek.

KILL ALL THE COWS.

[42. John said the following at 5:03 PM on Dec 28:]

42

This may help people understand what ultimately helps the poor AND the environment AND what doesn't help:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CanInvestorsGreedSaveAfrica.aspx

[43. Paul said the following at 7:11 PM on Dec 28:]

43

It's a little unfortunate that Ted's first post plays skeptical sound-bites against alarmism. It's actually quite difficult to find the science behind the Senate report (most of their links appear to have been harvested from newspaper stories, letters to newspaper and magazine editors, and blogs, which in my book is inexcusably lazy for an official government report), but then I also understand that Al Gore's film may make heavily exaggerated claims and be a little light on actual science. Under the circumstances, we could be forgiven for our trouble in making sense of either argument (and argument is the correct term, because in many circles this has become more of an argument than a useful scientific discussion).

For those who have asked for a discussion of the science supporting climate change, I've found this summary from the UK Met Office useful:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html
It discusses the science, admits some of the flaws in current models, and attempts to avoid making political statements, while remaining fairly readable by those of us that are not experts. Some bits are specifically relevant to the UK, but I hope the rest is useful to Boundless readers in the US.

Can anyone offer a similar scientific overview of the skeptical side of the debate please? I would be really interested to see such a document, because I don't think I've come across anything (other than resurfacing debunked myths) that goes beyond the sound-bites level.

[44. Ted Slater said the following at 10:30 PM on Dec 28:]

44

Paul -- you say that it's "actually quite difficult to find the science behind the Senate report."

I provided 24 examples of responses from legitimate, peer-approved scientists who insist that their research findings are contrary to what the proponents of anthropogenic global warming posit. There are hundreds of additional scientific responses.

You go on to write, "I also understand that Al Gore's film may make heavily exaggerated claims and be a little light on actual science." May have? The British courts have found that he in fact *did* exaggerate his claims on numerous occasions.

OK, let's put Al Gore against these 400+ scientists. This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning. This man doesn't even have a degree at all related to climate change, and yet he's the mouth piece for the movement. And so many people would prefer to put their faith in Al Gore than in legitimate scientists who are calling for a calm, scientific exploration of the data regarding climate change.

You characterize these scientists as holding a "skeptical side of the debate." No, these scientists are holding a scientific side of the debate. Isn't that what science is, after all? Examining the evidence, proposing a hypothesis, and then testing against it? We shouldn't be politicizing science the way Al Gore et al. are doing, using terms like "consensus" and "skeptical." The stakes for our liberty and way of life are too high to politicize the research.

I appreciate your weighing in. Please don't take my passion for this subject as an insult to you. I honestly don't mean it as that. We'd probably be best friends if you didn't live on the other side of the Atlantic. ;-)

[45. Jethro said the following at 12:55 AM on Dec 29:]

45

"OK, let's put Al Gore against these 400+ scientists. This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning."

And Einstein was a patent clerk and Ramanujan was a clerk at the Port Office. What's your point?

[46. Ted Slater said the following at 1:16 AM on Dec 29:]

46

Jethro -- Einstein earned a degree in physics. Ramanujan studied mathematics at Cambridge. Both of them received formal education in their area of expertise. The same cannot be said of the opportunistic Al Gore. He earned an undergrad degree in being a politician, and that's all.

Of course, when it comes to science, one's education should be fairly irrelevant. We should not trust in names, but in the legitimacy and veracity of scientific findings. Even if those findings go against popular opinion. Even if the elite say that there's already a "consensus," and that we should stop considering evidence that indicates otherwise.

I'm actually encouraged by your resistance to the "appeal to authority" argument, Jethro. I'm encouraged that you're more impressed with facts than with diplomas.

[47. Jeremy said the following at 3:02 AM on Dec 29:]

47

"I'm encouraged that you're more impressed with facts than with diplomas."

The point so many here are trying to make, though, is that the Christian distrust of global warming seems to come much more from a pre-conceived notion than from facts. Most of us are not well-educated enough in this field to have any basis for evaluating claims made by either side. Therefore, we look to experts in the field. A majority of experts are on one side (that global warming is in large part caused by humans), with a smaller group of experts on the other.

What you are doing, Ted, is choosing which experts to listen to based on what you had already decided. Quotes like "No, these scientists are holding a scientific side of the debate." (with the obvious implication that the scientists on the majority side are somehow non-scientific), and your ad hominem attacks on Al Gore show quite clearly that your mind was made up long ago, and I think this is sadly true of many people on both sides of the debate.

[48. John said the following at 11:35 AM on Dec 29:]

48

Jeremy,

What's sadly true is that you don't know what an "ad hominem" attack actually is.

Jeremy, Ted did not do that, sorry, but you are welcome to try again next time.

You however have committed a logical fallacy that neither Ted nor anyone, Christian or otherwise, should commit and that is an appeal to authority.

Use logic and common sense, not experts.

When done correctly and properly you too can know the truth.

Athroprogenic global warming=wrong
Cow dung=true cause

KILL ALL THE COWS!:)

[49. Jeremy said the following at 12:44 PM on Dec 29:]

49

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

"This man -- the lead proponent of global warming -- has a mere Bachelor of Arts degree in government. That's it. He received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters of divinity school. He did attend Law School, but dropped out shortly after beginning."

None of these points have anything to do with the argument about global warming. This is a textbook case of an ad hominem argument. And, indeed, Ted tries to have it both ways by continuing with "Of course, when it comes to science, one's education should be fairly irrelevant. We should not trust in names, but in the legitimacy and veracity of scientific findings." The reason he must add this proviso is obvious -- most scientists agree with the man who got 5 Fs in divinity school.

-------------------------------------

In reference to the fallacy of appeal to authority, I quote again:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

Appealing to authority is not a logical fallacy in general; it is a fallacy if and only if the source in question is not an authority. Appealing to the claims of specific scientists (those who have poured their lives into studying this material) is not the fallacy of appealing to authority, it is instead humbly recognizing authority. I can certainly study, I can try to evaluate the evidence, but I (and all of us here) should recognize that my untrained "logic and common sense" are probably not sufficient to completely understand an incredibly complex scientific issue.

But this is all beside the point; almost everyone reading this agrees that appealing to authority is valid (indeed, that is what Ted was doing in his original post). The question is instead which authority to appeal to. Ted seems to feel comfortable accepting the minority opinion precisely because it is in the minority, and thus he sees those scientists as somehow of necessity braver and more truthful than their counterparts on the other side of the fence. I do not. I recognize that the minority opinion could be right, but it makes no sense to me to adopt it merely for that reason. That is why I have to conclude that Ted's mind was made up before he read this article.

[50. Jethro said the following at 9:59 PM on Dec 29:]

50

Ted,

"The opportunistic Al Gore"

Boy, you have an incredible ability to read people. Clearly you have a personal dislike of the man. I think it's clouding your judgment. But gee I admire you for taking a swing at someone who doesn't have the benefit of reply.

Second. So what if his degree is in government? Why is it a 'mere' degree? Are government degree's worth nothing? Can Al Gore not acquire knowledge in areas other than his undergraduate study? On which note, what was your degree in Ted? Was it the science of global warming? Was it theology? Why should anyone listen to you on either topic?

[51. John said the following at 10:32 AM on Dec 30:]

51

Jeremy,

Read your own definitions before you try to prove a point, because you make yourself look silly when you don't.

You tried using the definition of ad hominem to validate your claim that
Ted commited that logical fallacy, when in fact that definition shows exactly why Ted's arguement does NOT fall into that category.

Key word: "irrelevant" Ted's points are very relevant. Sorry. But hopefully you understand logic a little better now. You might need a new text book.

Now your second defition is simply incorrect. Appeal to authority IS a logical fallacy in general, not simply if the authority is in actuality not authoritative.

You're explaination commits another logical fallacy, I'll let you try to figure out which one it is.

Sorry, but you're wrong again about Ted's intentions. His original post is to show that there are infact SCIENTISTS who indeed do not believe the sinful pseudo science of anthropogenic global warming, BECAUSE so many AGW believers want to characterize people who don't believe as non-scientific backwards religionists.

HE'S POINTING OUT THE VERY FALLACY THAT PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING, APPEALING TO AUTHORITY AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

One more time, it does not matter how expert or authoritative the authority is, he could still be wrong.

That's why God gave us a brain that uses common sense and logic to see through "complex" scientific issues.

Happy New Year!

[52. John said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 30:]

52

Jeremy,

Oh, I forgot to mention. Your definition of the fallacy of appeal to authority, though wrong, would prove what you think Ted is saying (though he's not), that people are appealing to an authority that is not authoritative.

Funny how that works.

[53. JB said the following at 2:11 PM on Dec 30:]

53

So a couple weeks ago, I tried to post a comment which criticized the scientific credentials of some of the scientists Ted quoted above. He declined to allow the comment saying that he didn't want to get into a debate about credentials because then people might say mean things about the scientists and people on the other side like Al Gore. Since we've apparently crossed that bridge, I'll try again.

Many of the scientists listed in the report are not "prominent" climatologists or even in some cases, scientists at all. For example, Richard Courtney works for a coal trading publication and is a spokesperson for a coal miners union. Others listed in Sen. Inhofe's document are largely funded by oil interests, such as Kelvin Kemm who runs the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Still others are scientists, but not climatologists. David Wojick has a PhD in the Philosophy of Science and has published nothing in a peer-reviewed journal on climate change.

This is relevant because Sen. Inhofe is claiming that there are many reputable scientists who have researched this area who disagree with global warming. The quality of their credentials go right to the heart of the point of this paper. If there are fewer than 400 reputable, qualified scientists who disagree with global warming, that proportionately weakens the case against a global warming consensus. If you want to evaluate this report, I would encourage you to do a little research into the scientists who are quoted here. I think you'll find a surprising number of them are not well-qualified independent climatologists.

[54. John said the following at 2:32 PM on Dec 31:]

54

"I think you'll find a surprising number of them are not well-qualified independent climatologists."

Which is exactly what can be stated about the IPCC and Al Gore.

But, again, as clearly stated already, even if the AGW crowd were "well-qualified independent climatologists" that does not mean that they are speaking the truth.

The logical fallacy? APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. There are lots of books out there about logic to help ya all. Pick up one and learn.

In the mean time, have fun trying to figure out your methane footprint.

[55. Paul said the following at 4:48 PM on Dec 31:]

55

Ted,

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate it. I also appreciate your warm tailpiece. The internet is a stark emotionless place, and I'm sure we would disagree in quite an amicable friendly way in person (as is my intention here).

I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was precisely that Al Gore is a bad source for those seeking science that supports global warming, in exactly the same way that skeptical headlines and soundbytes are a bad source for those looking for science that supports the opposite view. Interestingly a lot of those complaining about Al Gore's film support that theory of man made climate change (including, so far as I can tell at least one of those you cite), and I agree with them that we are influencing climate change, but the way Al Gore presents it is not great. As you are aware of the British court ruling, perhaps you should note the judge's comments that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate", but that there were 9 significant "errors" of alarmism and exaggeration that required correction whenever the film was used in an educational context. Or in other words, the general scientific principles of the film are correct, the presentation of them goes too far.

You might imagine at this point that I'm one of those people I have described as "seeking science that supports global warming". Actually the opposite is true. I've seen more than enough to convince me. I'd actually like to see some of the science on the other side of the debate if it is actually out there, so that I have the choice of reading and rejecting it or revising my view accordingly.

I have no doubt that the 24 quotes you presented from the senate report are taken from authors of peer reviewed journal articles. My problem is that as they stand they are just headlines or soundbytes about isolated, disconnected ideas. How should I respond to theories that I have seen discounted with good reason elsewhere, or claims that are not backed up with evidence, while others are offering me a coherent and near conclusive science? Please tell me what I should do with advice like "The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system" if I am not given access to those "important facts". I want to see some of the actual science that sits behind those quotes. Where is the data, the graphs of past trends and future climate predictions, with the reasons for them. I've offered a systematic summary of the UK Met Office's position. Please, please, please find me a similarly rigorous and readable summary of the other side of the debate, because I can't find it. In its absence I have no other rational option, but to assume the argument against human influenced climate change simply doesn't stack up.

[56. John said the following at 4:54 PM on Jan 1:]

56

Paul, read much about slavery these days.

No. Then it must not be a problem, right?

Your logic about AGW is just as wrong as you would be if you used the same logic about slavery.

Sorry, but the "scientific" "facts" that you say lead you to your conclusion are more unscientific falsehood than you think.

[57. John said the following at 5:22 PM on Jan 1:]

57

Paul, here's another one for ya.

I'm sure you constantly hear about the melting polar ice, right?

Well, did you also know that the south pole is showing record ice growth?

No? Didn't think so. Could it be that the powers that be don't want you to know that? Hmmm, could be:)

[58. John said the following at 5:52 PM on Jan 1:]

58

Paul et al.

Here ya go. Listen to the logic, hear it sing!

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/12/100-prominent-scientists-disagree-with.html

[59. Ted Slater said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 1:]

59

Paul -- what many of these scientists have done is found that the research supporting AGW is invalid or has been falsified or has been exaggerated.

I'm not sure what tests/studies they could do to *prove* that humans are *not* responsible for climate change; they are, however, showing that the studies proving AGW are untrustworthy. The "hockey stick" theory, for example -- something used by some (including the IPCC) to support their believe in AGW -- has been proven false due to flawed methodologies. Let me encourage you to spend some time at that site -- some fascinating, eye-opening discussions.

I appreciate your continued interest in this topic, Paul. It's fun to explore what we believe and why we believe what we believe.

[60. obewan said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 19:]

60

We can dispute the reality of GW until the cows come home, but the potential savings to be had in simple conservation and good stewardship of the Earth's resources can not be denied.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative has posted some "success stories" about people who are both saving energy and reducing pollution. The churches are of special interest because the Lord's work can always use more money. The best story is as follows:

To care for creation as well as the bottom line, Hebron Baptist Church in Dacula, Georgia, implemented a program to replace inefficient lighting. After receiving almost a thousand new energy-efficient lamps, their monthly loan payment for the new lighting was approximately $1,300, but their utility bill savings were over $2,700 per month.

The results:

Annual Savings: $32,000

Annual Energy Savings: 450,000 kWh

Pollution Prevented: 1 million pounds of global warming pollution per year.

For other "success stories" visit the Evangelical Climate Initiative website
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/success

[61. Jeff said the following at 2:35 PM on Feb 19:]

61

Thanks, obewan! Finally something I think we can all agree on!

[62. Ted Slater said the following at 3:48 PM on Feb 19:]

62

obewan -- I checked out the site. It's great that a church is saving money. I commend them for being able to use their financial resources wisely.

But talk about an arlarmist Web site. Keep in mind that we're talking about a change in temperature of less than a degree fahrenheit over the course of a century. Yes, I wrote that correctly: One degree. One hundred years.

And this one degree -- from 75 degrees to 76 degrees, for example -- is causing droughts and killer "heat waves." Right. It's also causing freak snow storms in the Middle East and unprecedented cold waves in India.

That site claims that CO2 is "the main greenhouse gas or global warming pollutant." That's factually incorrect. Water vapor is the main "greenhouse gas." If this site can't even get the most simple fact right, how am I supposed to trust them in other areas?

And that they consider greenhouse gases to be "pollutants" is bewildering. If we got rid of all such "pollutants," our global temperature would plummet 60 degrees fahrenheit to -2 degrees. Brrr!

The site says that "80-90 million poor people could be at risk of hunger and malnutrition" because of this 1-degree temperature increase per century. No, with more CO2 and water vapor and a slight rise in temperature, crops may very well grow more abundantly. We'll actually feed *more* people if the temperature goes up a bit and there's more of the stuff -- CO2 -- that plants "breathe" and more of the stuff -- water -- that refreshes them.

Humans love to get all worked up over something. Global warming is just the latest fad. Evidence is actually arising that we'll be experiencing global cooling over the coming decades. And people will freak out about that. People are people.

I can already hear the complaints against me: "Ted wants to rape the planet and pollute the air and water and waste resources at the expense of those around him!" If you believe that I believe that, then you're *completely* misunderstanding my convictions on behalf of truth and faith.

[63. Phil said the following at 2:32 AM on Aug 3:]

63

Just wanted to say bravo Ted, nice to read a rational thought out statement. Maybe you should get into the whole "Humans only account for almost 3 percent of CO2." Of that 3 percent only about half a percent can we do anything about. Most CO2 comes from dying plants, Volcanos, and livestock...yes livestock.