Question Global Warming by Ted Slater on 01/16/2009 at 3:00 PM

An e-mail I received this morning begins, "It kind of disgusts me that the evangelical core seems to naturally question global warming." Another simply reiterated points from Al Gore's error-filled film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Another dismisses the article because it wasn't written by a "scientist."

These are some of the e-mails we've received in reaction to today's featured Boundless article, "Question Global Warming."

The thing is, none of them address the point of the article: to encourage us to thoughtfully evaluate this issue, rather than simply repeat what the cool people are saying about it.

Author Jay Richards begins his article affirming our responsibility to care for the earth:

Most thoughtful Christians these days have spent time considering how to be good stewards of the environment. After all, even if environmentalism weren't so fashionable, Christians have a solid biblical motivation to be good stewards of the environment.

He then goes on to challenge us how to evaluate the competing ideas behind climate change:

To think clearly about this issue, we have to tease apart this bundle of claims and consider each one. For each claim, there is a corresponding question we need to answer. And it's only after answering these questions that we can be in a position to determine what, if anything, we ought to do about global warming.

He then provides four central questions that we might ask.

I expect some comments will dismiss this article as anti-science, as pro-pollution, as the kind of mindlessness expected from Boundless. I expect some to agree with the first letter above, that it's disgusting to question what we've been told; for others to follow the pattern of the second letter above by copy-pasting the global warming alarmists' talking points; for others to file ad hominem complaints against the author, not even considering what he's said because none of his degrees (Ph.D., Th.M., M.Div.) is in a field of science. (They, of course, will see their opinions as valid, though they're less credentialled than the author.)

But I hope that you will mull over the four questions posed in that article: Is the earth indeed warming, are we at fault, is it necessarily bad, and would the "solutions" actually solve anything?

If you'd like to become more informed about "the other side" of the global warming argument, consider reading through some of the following:

• Focus on the Family's Position Statement on the Environment
• Focus on the Family's Position Statement on Global Warming
• ICECAP
• Climate Audit
• The Heartland Institute
• CO2 Science
• Global Warming Petition Project
• The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
• Junk Science
• Science and Public Policy Institute
• Judge Michael Burton's "nine errors"
• Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age'

At the very least, these resources should lead us to be less confident that we're causing the earth to heat up to dangerous levels, and that we must consequently raise taxes and hinder personal liberty to rein things in.

Question Global Warming by Ted Slater on 01/16/2009 at 3:00 PM

An e-mail I received this morning begins, "It kind of disgusts me that the evangelical core seems to naturally question global warming." Another simply reiterated points from Al Gore's error-filled film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Another dismisses the article because it wasn't written by a "scientist."

These are some of the e-mails we've received in reaction to today's featured Boundless article, "Question Global Warming."

The thing is, none of them address the point of the article: to encourage us to thoughtfully evaluate this issue, rather than simply repeat what the cool people are saying about it.

Author Jay Richards begins his article affirming our responsibility to care for the earth:

Most thoughtful Christians these days have spent time considering how to be good stewards of the environment. After all, even if environmentalism weren't so fashionable, Christians have a solid biblical motivation to be good stewards of the environment.

He then goes on to challenge us how to evaluate the competing ideas behind climate change:

To think clearly about this issue, we have to tease apart this bundle of claims and consider each one. For each claim, there is a corresponding question we need to answer. And it's only after answering these questions that we can be in a position to determine what, if anything, we ought to do about global warming.

He then provides four central questions that we might ask.

I expect some comments will dismiss this article as anti-science, as pro-pollution, as the kind of mindlessness expected from Boundless. I expect some to agree with the first letter above, that it's disgusting to question what we've been told; for others to follow the pattern of the second letter above by copy-pasting the global warming alarmists' talking points; for others to file ad hominem complaints against the author, not even considering what he's said because none of his degrees (Ph.D., Th.M., M.Div.) is in a field of science. (They, of course, will see their opinions as valid, though they're less credentialled than the author.)

But I hope that you will mull over the four questions posed in that article: Is the earth indeed warming, are we at fault, is it necessarily bad, and would the "solutions" actually solve anything?

If you'd like to become more informed about "the other side" of the global warming argument, consider reading through some of the following:

• Focus on the Family's Position Statement on the Environment
• Focus on the Family's Position Statement on Global Warming
• ICECAP
• Climate Audit
• The Heartland Institute
• CO2 Science
• Global Warming Petition Project
• The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
• Junk Science
• Science and Public Policy Institute
• Judge Michael Burton's "nine errors"
• Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age'

At the very least, these resources should lead us to be less confident that we're causing the earth to heat up to dangerous levels, and that we must consequently raise taxes and hinder personal liberty to rein things in.

Comments

[1. IMO said the following at 3:08 PM on Jan 16:]

1

Weird. I though the article emphasised being good stewards. We can have differing opinions after that...

Whoever is disgusted by this article really needs to get a reality check. Why the rage? There are way more disgusting things out there. This article isn't one of them.

Should I dismiss biblical counsel if it's not from a pastor (with a counseling degree?)

Sure we can disagree on a lot of things ...but can we do it in a civil way?

[2. TINA said the following at 3:22 PM on Jan 16:]

2

I think we have to all do are part....however,as we all know we are not going to stop it...its obvious...they can collect billions for the cause GOD has already spoken of whats to come this is part of his divine plan for the great day of his sons return.....

[3. Alison said the following at 5:23 PM on Jan 16:]

3

Questions like these are important to ask, and I agree with the tone of the article. I especially liked his reference to how less people will die in areas where they are very cold--it's true.
But it's clear the author is relatively uninformed about the issue at hand--he only refers to the literal interpretation of the two words stuck together and uses this as his viewpoint. One of the most basic of basic things to understand is that Global Warming refers to more extreme change--meaning some areas are going to experience extreme cold once in a while too as the earth realigns itself over the next few thousand years.
Surely it's possible he left that core piece out unintentionally, but it's usually one of those flags of rhetorical significance that shows someone spent a week researching a topic that takes years upon years to grasp with any authority.

I think as Christians we are commanded to humble ourselves and realize where we are not in a position to speak with much authority (which is *not* to say we shouldn't ask questions and discuss the issues). Sure, we should think and analyze and come to our own conclusions that were drawn in a God-honouring way. But we shouldn't be teaching these conclusions in areas where we are ill-informed to people less informed than us. Our job is to enable them to go learn about and navigate the world themselves.

[4. Becky said the following at 5:24 PM on Jan 16:]

4

What bothers me is to many Christians use the global warming extremist as an excuse not to care about the environment at all. No one knows for sure just how bad global is or isn't but you can't deny that humans have a huge impact on this earth and that impact is not always good. Pollution is terrible and we are using up our fossil fuels (and whether you believe they'll be gone in 10 years or 100 is besides the point, one day they will be gone so why not try and find ways to replace them) and as "stewards of the earth" instead of sitting on the sidelines arguing that humans are doing nothing wrong we should be out in the fore front on issues that we know we've had an impact on, like smog and landfills and destroying forest. Like the article said having dominion over the earth is not an excuse to ruin it.

[5. Jarod said the following at 5:29 PM on Jan 16:]

5

This is one of the best articles I have ever read against global warming. Perhaps because I have some of the same doubts, but it really questions what some of the major assumptions global warming is based on.
In the 11th Century, there were so many colonists in Greenland that the Vatican deemed fit for them to have their own bishop. That period was way warmer than it is today as Greenland is largely covered in ice.
As well, the in 1650's, there was a mini-iceage as the war between the Dutch and English was cut short early every year because of ice during in the North Sea.
The earth's climate and local temperatures have varied so much in the past 1000 years that to make assumptions of impending global catastrophe based on just over 100 years of data is absurd.

[6. Jacob said the following at 5:35 PM on Jan 16:]

6

When the "only" way to save our planet is to implement a sweeping socialist agenda, I am doubtful.

[7. Mike Miller said the following at 5:45 PM on Jan 16:]

7

Jay Richards, in my opinion, does a good job on answering the questions stated in the article. He showed that
maybe the world is barking at nothing. He logical shows that global warming is not an important issue because the scientific data is simple not there.

As for the first e-mail, I think a Christian should natural question anything that comes from humans. Science has moved away from scientific method to finding data to fit what they want to prove. So more than ever should Christians examine these issues when the come up.

[8. Sheridan said the following at 5:48 PM on Jan 16:]

8

My dad always says,
'school teaches you WHAT to think, not HOW to think.'

And I see it more and more today...so many people believe the first thing they are told. They dont question things anymore because they take their teachers, professors, doctors, scientists, word for it. News Flash. All these people get it wrong, continually...regardless of their degrees. Think for yourself people! Do some research OUTSIDE of the mainstream for a change, and then make your decision. So what if Al Gore TELLS you something he believes to be true? You question every article boundless publishes dont you? Thats good. Now question every global warming article too.

[9. has a bio degree said the following at 5:53 PM on Jan 16:]

9

To answer the questions:
1. It's tough to tell if the earth is warming. Some evidence suggests that it peaked around 1998 and is starting to cool again. Try telling a New Englander about global warming this year and he'll bury you in snow.
2. I think it's profoundly arrogant to think that the human population could have a significant impact on the biosphere we call earth. A cow makes a bigger carbon footprint than an SUV. Sure, there are ways we can minimize our impact on the environment, but we need to realize that (a) we share the world with millions of organisms that all contribute to the environment and (b) the earth was obviously designed to sustain chronic and acute impacts of all sorts. We just aren't as big a deal as we think.
3. No. The earth will cycle through warm and cool spells. It's been happening for centuries.
4. See #2 - we just are less significant than we think.

[10. Liln said the following at 6:15 PM on Jan 16:]

10

I thought the article did a very good job. Whether or not global warming is happening or not, isn't the point. The point is, do we have to worry?

I wrote my college research paper on this subject this fall. The more I dug, the more I found that some of the dots people are claiming are connected really aren't. They'd like them to be, but there's no clear evidence aiming them in that direction.

I had to gather information from an interview. I chose the local meteorologist and she was fully skeptical of it. One of the biggest points she made and was a drive in my thesis, is that we've only had accurate temperature recordings for 150-ish years. The general consensus of those who believe the earth goes through temperature cycles, put this around every 1500 years. So, how can we say the jump has never been before? How can we prove that this is (or isn't) a catastrophe?

One final thought. Within the past year, year and a half, the term "global warming" has become outdated. Now it's "climate change." The scientists who claimed the earth was headed for major spikes, now aren't sure if we're going to continue climbing, or if we will decrease. Interesting, yes?

[11. Simon said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 16:]

11

Why are people disgusted? Because they've accepted the tenets of the religion of environmentalism and Gaia worship, laid out by High Priest Al Gore, and this article asks people to question that religion.

[12. Samaria said the following at 7:14 PM on Jan 16:]

12

This is the science FotF chooses to focus on? When are the conservatives going to stop fighting against proven science? Once the conservatives start admitting and accepting the truth of evolution and the manipulation put behind Expelled, then we'll talk about Al Gore's so-called lies behind An Inconvenient Truth.

I think it's obvious that global warming is not only a reality, but that it is affecting this world. I don't understand why there is any doubt; honestly, it doesn't make much sense to deny it, especially since it's been proven to be dangerous. I love considering the other perspective, but this is kind of ridiculous, excuse me if that comes off impolitely.

[13. Ultraviolet said the following at 7:21 PM on Jan 16:]

13

I'll grant that we may not KNOW that the earth is warming, whether it's a good or a bad thing, or whether we're even causing it...BUT does the fact that we don't know for sure mean we shouldn't do anything? Maybe not spending a huge amount of money on Kyoto, but the idea that we can make a difference on the environment shouldn't be ignored. Because if global warming is false, and we work "against" it, then we lose nothing. If global warming is true, and we DON'T do anything, we lose everything. Maybe we can't stop it, but I think we can help...Jay Richards seems to trivialize what we can do by saying "it wouldn't do squat." I think trying to do "squat" is a lot better than not trying at all. So what difference does it make if any of the assumptions scientists make don't turn out to be true...we can still try our best to take care of our planet.

[14. Charles Pierce, Australia said the following at 7:35 PM on Jan 16:]

14

I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:

http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce

[15. SMC said the following at 7:48 PM on Jan 16:]

15

I don't know about you, but after spending the past few days in sub-zero temperatures, it's hard to think about global warming. :)

[16. A.M.C. said the following at 8:44 PM on Jan 16:]

16

Such a response is not surprising, considering that some people (and I do mean people on both sides of the political spectrum) do make the mistake of being open-minded in most situations except when people's views disagree with theirs. (Haven't we received the same response when the issue is [atheistic] evolution, for example?)

==> Then again, I wonder why there are such ardent defenders of the "human-caused global warming as an evil" theory. Could it be that environmentalism--in its extreme form--is now a profitable industry? (In other words, perhaps certain special interest groups can only make money if the public is brainwashed on the idea that human-caused global warming is an evil that must be eradicated at all costs?)

[17. Ted Slater said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 16:]

17

Becky (#4) -- you said that "many Christians use the global warming extremist as an excuse not to care about the environment at all." I'm just not seeing that. Do you have any specific examples? It just sounds to me like the cliche I hear on TV, something I've never, ever seen in the real world.

You express concern about "smog and landfills and destroying forests." I have concerns about those things as well. Who doesn't?

Please know that "pollution" is different from so-called "greenhouse gases." "Greenhouse gases" include water vapor, CO2 (the stuff that you exhale) and methane (the stuff that you toot).

We're all against pollution. The thing is, we can't help but produce so-called "greenhouse gases." Indeed, without these "greenhouse gases," the earth would be uninhabitably cold. We would all die if we banned all "greenhouse gases."

Have you worked through the four questions posed by the author? I've found them to be really helpful.

[18. Melissa S. said the following at 12:16 AM on Jan 17:]

18

That was a fantastic article!!

And here is the blog post I knew would happen, although I expected a lot more flat out dismissal of the article and other comments in the same line. Instead, what a pleasant surprise! It's mixed up this time. There are some original comments from people who seem to have thinking skills. Such a refreshing change. I almost didn't look at the comments since it was a global warming post but I'm glad I did.

Jacob #6- lol! That one doubt makes a brilliant argument. Socialist agendas...be doubtful, be very doubtful.

[19. TINA said the following at 12:57 AM on Jan 17:]

19

I don't think everything Al Gore stands for is a lie.He has strong convictions,concerns,interest,whatever you want to call it to raise awareness to the opposing problem at hand...He is a activess for what he believes in...really nothing wrong with that....what i find funny(in a cute sense) is Leonardo DiCaprio he has certainly taken his convictions to a high level of priority his all go green apartment and everything in it,what he drives,even what he eats..His heart is definitely in it nothing wrong with that either......however, will it add one extra day to the earth existence?We as a race have already set the stage for the damage since the beginning of time....And of coarse should make a effort while we are still alive to take better care of the land the LORD has given to us.......so we have a better quality life while still living,or for as many generations are to come after us............It is good to have a passion in life to stand for what you believe in...if ya don't you will fall for anything......imagine if Jesus gave up on his passion to save us?I know me personally would be in big trouble...

[20. BDB said the following at 1:14 AM on Jan 17:]

20

OK, let me give you an answer from one of my Biology professors, 17 years ago, when someone asked about global warming.

He shrugged and said, "30 years ago, everyone was worried about global cooling." That was the scientfic consensus.

But then he drew on the chalkboard what you would need to prove the theory. You'd need temperature and gas sensors in every cubic meter of the atmosphere and every cubic meter of the ocean to collect data - and you'd need the data going back 300 years.

The data set doesn't exist. The models have to be incomplete. If our models were mathematically accurate, we could predict the weather next month. If we can't predict next month, we can't predict 100 years from now. All the models are based on assumptions that prove their desired thesis - that the earth is warming.

And here's what should frighten you: this economic meltdown? It's ALSO based on complicated mathematical models. Trillons of dollars of mortgage-backed securities were priced and insured based on these models. Lots of smart people were paid a lot of money to make these risk models.

And they were wrong. None of the risk models predicted a bursting bubble like this. Even though 3 years ago the "financial consensus" was that collateralized debt obligations were the right thing to do.

If we can spend that much money on financial models that are incomplete, and we spend far less on climate modeling, how much more incomplete are he climate models?

Frankly, it reminds me of the Y2K panic. I remember precisely when I decided Y2K was empty hype: when the seminar at my church said "an executive in the power industry" said they ran a test, and the power plant shut down.

In that instant I realized, "I'll bet it was a marketing executive, not an engineering executive." Uh-oh.

[21. Lori said the following at 1:56 AM on Jan 17:]

21

I feel strongly inclined to agree with Becky (4) and Jacob (6). I know that a benchmark in my childhood was how my father wouldn't even let us recycle because "God is in control of what's going to happen." As though separating trash was denying the authority of God (and there we have a direct example of what Becky referred to). I do wonder if this is a forerunner for the end times though. It's bound to happen at some point (whether you believe it's going on now, or will happen), a global socialism would certainly seem to point to that. What I feel is that we have to be wise, don't give in to fear, don't forget that we must act (Christianity is not the faith of the seditary), and don't forget that God is in control (and that's a good thing!).

I definitely think we should give thought to decreasing pollution (and I'm not talking necessarily about green house gasses, I'm talking about the stuff that makes asthmatics have to say inside some days), decreasing the use of fossil fuels, increasing the drinkable water on the planet (big one there), decreasing extravagance and waste (and I think that means that we reuse and recycle and try to buy wisely), and that we consider what can further be done to stop deforestation (except where the forests are 'farmed' forests obviously) and animal extinction.

Does this mean we give over our rights to a global legislation or pay massive taxes? I don't think so. If the Earth is warming and it's bad and it's directly a result of the industrial revolution, does that mean that we should keep on doing what we have been doing because "God's in control?" No. Does that mean that God is neither Good nor in control? No.

God put his laws in the hearts of all men and He created us all. Obviously we disagree with the extremist environmentalism, just like we disagree with doomsdayers in general, but I think that we ought to consider if there's even a little bit of wisdom to be taken from them. It might be in our backlash against them we miss something and no only fail as stewards but fail to be at peace with everyone as much as we are able.

[22. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:01 AM on Jan 17:]

22

Jacob #6 - didn't you get the memo? All the cool conservatives are getting on board. "Socialism" is the new "conservatism". I think you ought to just get on board, buddy. Resistance is (likely) futile.

[23. Jacob said the following at 7:58 AM on Jan 17:]

23

Carrie (#22),

I see. Then I shall prepare to be assimilated. Then I shall not question the Borg, but only mindlessly love, embrace and accept everything the Collective tells me.

Thanks for passing along the memo. I'll enjoy these last few days of questioning cultural authority and people with flagrant agendas and biases before they come for me.

[24. JB said the following at 8:44 AM on Jan 17:]

24

I think the article is absolutely correct that we should think critically about global warming and, really, all science and policy issues. I would argue, though, that the reason you received the email response you did has less to do with the individual's unwillingness to engage in critical thinking and more to do with the politicization of the global warming issue.

If there is genuine scientific controversy about the facts of global warming and if people are genuinely engaging in an examination of their positions, you would expect to see people both for and against global warming distributed more or less evenly across ideological and religious lines. Clearly that isn't the case. The more conservative a person is, the less likely they are to believe in global warming, and vice versa. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a politician's voting record on abortion and same sex marriage predicted their position on global warming.

Combined with this problem is the fact that climate science is extremely complicated and impossible for even well-meaning non-experts to critically assess. I'm a fairly well-educated guy who is interested in science, but I have no idea how one tells if satellite temperature measurements are accurate, how to construct and test a climate predicting computer model, or how to estimate the relative effects of atmospheric CO2 and sun intensity. This inability to make use of raw data about global warming effectively forces us to rely on the opinions of experts in the field.

If our politics guide us to a conclusion about global warming and we simply choose to listen to those authorities whose opinions agree with ours, we haven't engaged in critical thinking about global warming at all. We've simply substituted some received reasons to justify a conclusion we had decided on before we began to examine the issue. The email writer, I imagine, believes that this sort of thing is behind the article in question.

But I am interested in how we ought to reasonably approach this issue. Are we better able to assess impartial data on global warming and come to conclusions about it than I think? Or is there some totally impartial source we can consult? My current position is that we are best off acknowledging that while there is some debate, the preponderance of climate scientists believe that global warming is real, caused by humans, and bad for us, and going with that. Any better ideas?

[25. farmer Tom said the following at 8:53 AM on Jan 17:]

25

22. Carrie (the original) said,

Jacob #6 - didn't you get the memo? All the cool conservatives are getting on board. "Socialism" is the new "conservatism". I think you ought to just get on board, buddy. Resistance is (likely) futile.

Another reason I don't call myself a conservative. What was liberal ten years ago is conservative now.

Me I'm going to stick to the originals.

I'm a fundamentalist, Scripture is my final authority for faith and practice.

And in the secular world, I'm a Constitutionalist.

No moving target which changes with each new political face or with time.

[26. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:20 AM on Jan 17:]

26

What bothers me about the pro-warming side is not so much that they claim it (and do have some valid claims worth investigating), but like evolutionists, essentially say to the rest of us, "We're right (because we're scientists with PhD's), and you're wrong. If you disagree with us, you are either an uneducated God-nut or an Industrial Mongul bent on destroying the Earth".

Over the years of learning science and asking hard questions (e.g. Was the Flood in Noah's Ark worldwide or regional? Were Adam and Eve actual individuals or a metaphor?) one thing that I've noticed is that the truth tends to get accepted without question if it's repeated often enough (think "Four legs good, two legs bad").

For example, most people accept that evolution is a "fact", yet if you ask the average person to explain why (bringing up classic objections) chances are he/she won't be able to do so. Same goes for global warming. Most will say that it is real and occuring, and that it's caused by CO2 emissions. But if you ask them to explain why that theory is plausible and others are not chances are they will just defer to something to the effect of, "Everyone knows it's true" (or maybe "Al Gore said it was and that was a pretty convincing movie").

Remember during the 70's when the "scientists" said we'd run out of oil in 20-ish years? Or that thing called Y2K which was supposedly to be at best a big inconvenience and at worst the next apocolypse? Or those medical claims that get revised every several years from things regarding the benefits/malignancy of everything from coffee to television. I'm not saying that all of scientists' claims are incorrect or unwarranted, but too often you hear of sensationalism in the news but rarely, if ever, hear a retraction.

Here's a little document listed on the government's EPA site which debunks the "consensus" myth. Of course the pro-warming camp may tell you things like, "They aren't real scientists" or "they are just paid by the oil industry lobby" (like the pro-warming camp entirely has its hands clean). I say simply just read for yourself and decide how it fits into the discussion, rather than just dismiss it.

For the record, I tend to accept the global warming theory, but remain highly skeptical, especially of how much influence mankind is having on the climate. The problem of course is a catch 22. By the time we'll know for sure, if we did nothing, and the claims are true, we could be in for a very uncomfortable existence. But if we do something, and find out the theory was as right as the impossibiity of heavier-than-air flight, it would have been a worldwide waste of resources.

I just don't appreciate that like evolution, global warming is a "fact" to which no intelligent discussion is allowed.

[27. Stephanie Jenkinson said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 17:]

27

Jay's article was excellent. I find it very ironic that the "weathermen" (or women) aren't really very accurate over the longterm (and sometimes over the short term!) and yet we are trusting the higher up metereologists to tell us what will happen in 50 years. I think they do a better job telling what has happened (and past trends) as opposed to predicting future weather.

I know that here in Canada, along the "south border", things are more like I remember it being when I grew up in northern Ontario (10 hours north of here). Currently we're in the middle of -30 weather. The last few winters have been brutal! There's definitely been a change, but it isn't a warming trend, at all.

[28. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:05 AM on Jan 17:]

28

Welcome to the dark side, Jacob.
Do, indeed, prepare to be assimilated.

[29. Melissa S. said the following at 11:34 AM on Jan 17:]

29

TINA #19- Not all passions are created equal. And what if the passion is misplaced. It doesn't make any sense to passionately stand for what is wrong!

I'm not saying necessarily that Al Gore is wrong or right...that's not my point. (Although if we say he's wrong for argument's sake, what we have is someone who fell for "anything" wrong and used a lot of passion doing so. Great. No protection there.)

What I'm saying is that just because Al Gore has a passion for what he believes in doesn't make it any more admirable if he's wrong about what he believes in.

And equating Jesus' passion to save sinners is hardly the same as having a passion to promote global warming ideology. Just because Jesus had passion does not vindicate all other passions. The only conclusion I can draw from your analogy is that just as Jesus is mankind's savior and our souls are doomed without Him, so is Al Gore mankind's savior and our planet and bodies would be doomed without Al Gore.

In and of itself, it's not wrong that Al Gore is an "activist", but good intentions do not validate all actions, even if you believe in them.

[30. Renee said the following at 11:44 AM on Jan 17:]

30

My South East history teacher last year told us that between 930 - 1150 AD, the population around the world rose, because the temperature rose, allowing more food to grow. So... why are we so worried about a warmer earth?

[31. JB said the following at 11:47 AM on Jan 17:]

31

Mike Theemling,

If the authorities quoted in the Senate minority report you linked to (it was not a statement by the EPA) really weren't climate scientists or if they were paid by oil companies, would that affect your reading of that evidence?

[32. Ultraviolet said the following at 2:03 PM on Jan 17:]

32

SMC #15 and Stephanie Jenkinson #27 -

I know that maybe it seems colder today, or this winter, but it really doesn't make sense to make commentaries about climate change due to a very select data point. On a geological timescale, the first few weeks of January mean *nothing*. And I hear this argument a LOT, so this is to anyone else who is inclined to make this argument as well.

[33. TINA said the following at 5:06 PM on Jan 17:]

33

Melissa#29 I think you misunderstood.......I was not comparing Al Gore to Jesus that would be absurd my point was Al has a passion that is his driving force good or bad as some would say he is dedicated to his mission which is a good example of how we are to be for Christ....I do tend to think people judge what he does because of his political party choice and a lot of debatable things they stand for..however what he stands for harms no one so that's not a horrible thing and as far as protection?clarify?wondering if you mean Gods?because if by chance you do how would you know the answer to that?let me guess its biblical not to want to make the GOD given land better for all of mankind? don't think so as a matter of fact just the opposite...I do want to thank you for "activist"..:).....

[34. Kelly said the following at 6:13 PM on Jan 17:]

34

My dad and I are both scientists (with degrees). He actively works in the field of studying the environment.

(In other words, we're more qualified than the average person screaming hysteria over global warming.)

And we don't believe that Global Warming is caused by humans, OR a reason to panic. I suspect there are many, many scientists who also have this point of view but it's not popular in the media.

[35. Dash RIPROCK III said the following at 6:56 PM on Jan 17:]

35

Al Gore must be held accountable for the wild hysteria he's created over global warming. Here is what you can do to help. Al Gore has recently stated that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in five years. We can't let this crazy prediction go unnoticed and we cannot allow his prediction to be forgotten. I've had liberals accuse me of fabricating this story, but it is very true and Al Gore was nice enough to make his predictin on camera. Here is the link to the vid:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com Once there, click on the pic of Big Al holding up five fingers.

When the five years have passed, we should all demand that Big Al go away and stop spreading this nonsense. Thank you for giving me a chance to post this on your site.

[36. Lukas said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 17:]

36

Was anyone else struck by the figures of 200,000 Europeans dying of heat every year, and 1.5 million dying of cold? Those sound to me like they're off by a few orders of magnitude.

[37. Amelia said the following at 12:33 AM on Jan 18:]

37

First, I'm so pleasantly surprised that this comment thread has been so civil on both sides. You guys are awesome! If it's just the result of effective moderators, then you guys rock.

Second, I want to address the precautionary principle, that in the absence of conclusive or near-conclusive evidence (such as the global warming debate), humanity needs to prevent the possible danger. The problem with the precautionary principle and global warming is the widespread assumption that preventing danger = stopping global warming. As has been so shrewdly raised, is global warming likely to have more negative or more positive effects?

I notice that advocates of taking action to do all we can to prevent possible global warming do not typically mention the costs of doing so. If it took no coercion and no resources that could be used elsewhere for proven needs, I would not object, nor I expect would most people. However, proposed actions to control greenhouse gas emissions require both coercion and massive redirection of resources. How about somebody doing a true cost-benefit analysis? What if we should apply the precautionary principle to the dangers of alarmist big-government actions?

Third, it is good to point out, as several have correctly done, that a few weeks of chill weather does not at all mean global warming is ruled out. However, what kind of evidence could rule out global warming? So often when any weather pattern occurs, I hear it attributed to global warming, be it drought, flood, heat, cold, tornadoes, hurricanes, or even fairly normal weather patterns. I suspect that if global cooling was in vogue, the same events would be somehow attributed to the "oncoming ice age."

Finally, I notice some people's assumptions about pollution problems and running out of natural resources. The U.S. and U.N. data on air and water pollution show that each year, our air and water are getting cleaner. Think of medieval conditions - those streets and water were not clean and disease ran rampant. Some areas - China is a good example - have increasing pollution levels, but historically, rising pollution from industrialization is followed by lowering pollution later, leaving behind better quality of life for everybody. There are far more trees in the U.S. than there were 100 years ago. Name me one natural resource that is going to run out. Time and time again in the past century, it was predicted that there were only ten years of copper supply, twenty years of oil, etc. The reserves that are economically viable to extract keep growing, and if supplies should fall and prices rise, then even more will be viable to extract.

It's counter-intuitive, but take a good look into the economics - natural resources appear to be inexhaustible. The principles are tricky, but I'll try to explain a tiny bit here. That does not mean we should get complacent or irresponsible, but as technological innovation continues to grow at a faster and faster pace, the observed pattern is that we will become better at utilizing resources, finding more, using it efficiently, finding substitutes and alternatives, and all the rest. Even fossil fuels do not appear to be running out (plus, if all the evidence is wrong and they ever did, alternative sources of energy keep looking better and better).

In other words, scientific evidence does not say you need be pessimistic. God did not make a substandard Creation, the world is a wonderful place, and it may be that we cannot change that. Book recommendation: Dr. Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource.

[38. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:05 AM on Jan 18:]

38

JB,

My apologies, the website was not on the EPA site (misread "epw" too quickly). I should not have implied such. I'll fess up to that immediately.

However, regarding what you said the latter part, it seems to confirm what I said in my original post. The moment that there is a dissent of opinion against global warming the first reaction from that pro-warming community tends to be, "well they aren't real climate scientists" or "they must've been paid by oil companies". This surprises me as your earlier posting implies that like myself, you want to approach the issue critcally.

Without an exhaustive vetting of each and every person on that list, it seems reasonable to say that a good number of them aren't merely puppets of the oil industry. Even if some of them are (and I wouldn't doubt that to be the case), I believe that the pro-warming camp also have their puppets as well. Let's be perfectly honest. There are pushes for "breakthroughs" and "groundbreaking discoveries" often because it is tied with research money. Sometimes big research money. If the 'in' thing right now is global warming, of course there is incentive for those to study it and publish "findings" (similarly another 'in' thing right now is alternative energy). What would happen to all those scientists who get their salaries off of global warming if, hypothetically, global warming was revealed to be a big mistake. As I stated earlier, I don't either side can completely claim bias-free findings.

Something in your earlier post also made me think:

"If there is genuine scientific controversy about the facts of global warming and if people are genuinely engaging in an examination of their positions, you would expect to see people both for and against global warming distributed more or less evenly across ideological and religious lines."

Ideally this would be the case, but it rarely happens. It doesn't happen with global warming, evolution, gun control, or many other issues. Here's why. Because labels are put onto people (environmentalistts, evangelicals, democrats/republicans, etc) and because those groups of people tend to have generalizations associated with them (environmentalists care more about spotted owls than people, evangelicals are too judgemental, etc) any time there is a position which is in coflict with another, we tend to attribute that dissent with their identification rather than the actual reasons. So if someone says they are skeptical of global warming many automatically assume they are either A) a religious fanatic, B) a texas-oil tycoon, C) a Republican or D) some combination of the above. As one or more of those groups, it is assumed that their line of reasoning is tainted and thus not valid. Thus, you won't see an even distribution of those for/against global warming. People's beliefs and convictions tend to bring labels onto them, not the other way around.

[39. LookTheOtherWay said the following at 7:30 AM on Jan 18:]

39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
End of first paragraph: "Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist)."
That would suggest that some warming is to be expected somewhere along the line.

Also, has anyone else heard the planet Venus used as as a dire warning about what could happen to Earth? Basically the argument goes like, "Venus is a planet comparable in size and composition to Earth, it might have been like Earth at some point in the past, it has a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere, and so now it's really hot and uninhabitable."
I've heard this repeated a few times, which is kind of scary because they always omit the fact that Venus is 41 million km closer to the sun.

A bunch of environmentalism makes sense, as has been already stated, recycle, use renewable wood etc, try and get off oil at the very least because of the political problems with the sourcing countries... makes sense.
That there are serious data issues associated with the climate change argument has led me from blindly following to skepticism over the last few years.
I read of a debate on the subject, in a school of all places, the class was split into two and had to argue for and against. The bit I remember most was that the for side quoted a CO2 increase measurement, and the against side pointed out that the sensor was placed at a volcano. Which gives out, among other things, CO2.
I agree with the article. Question everything. Just add "Where was the data obtained from" to the list (like the "how accurate is it" from the satellites in an earlier reply)

[40. Mac said the following at 8:48 AM on Jan 18:]

40

I'm a hardcore rightwing talk radio junkie, and yeah, I think the whole Global Warming scare is stupid.

However,

I can't help but think that Focus on the Family, and Christian organizations like it are hurting their own ministries when they issue official statements about their stance on Global Warming or other political issues that have little to do with that ministry's mission. Abortion or education are more understandable as such issues directly intersect with FOTF's mission, but doesn't an argument for or against global warming instead just tend to isolate those of different opinion, that would otherwise benefit greatly from this ministry? Why not speak where the Bible speaks, but be silent where it is silent?

[41. k. said the following at 11:35 AM on Jan 18:]

41

Every time I see an article on Boundless about global warming, I make a donation to an environmental organization.

[42. Christina said the following at 8:21 PM on Jan 18:]

42

Mike in #26 -

To help with that Noah thing being regional or world wide, I've got some food for thought!

Just interesting trivia, but two other epic/mythological/historical accounts (at the very least) talk about a flood of epic proportions :)

One in the Middle East (Gilgamesh) and another one originating in Peru about a Llama that warns the people of a flood to come. They don't believe him, but he goes to the top of a mountain anyway. The floods came and everyone died. That's the peruvian reason for llamas not talking - no one would believe him anyway!

I know this doesn't seriously help the question any, but it gives some food for thought :)

[43. Simon said the following at 10:20 PM on Jan 18:]

43

Good call Farmer Tom (#25). What passes for mainstream conservatism these days is a morally and intellectually bankrupt adherence to big government, Republican style. Quick to embrace the latest social democratic fads and having completely abandoned concepts like individual rights and Constitutional rule of
law.

Is the earth getting warmer or colder? You can point out evidence supporting both views. But some people are more interested in fads than facts, and mindlessly jump on the global warming bandwagon.

[44. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:09 AM on Jan 19:]

44

Global warm-mongering is much like goo-to-you evolution: their supporters like to claim "the debate is over" and silence dissent rather than debate the issues.

Also, the original article pointed out that advocates of weapons of mass taxation need to answer four questions not just one, including: is warming more harmful than cooling, and are the benefits of halting warming enough to justify the health costs of increased impoverishment.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a Ph.D. Economist, identified some of the biases:

The global warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These rent-seekers profit

- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;

- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;

- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);

- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.

These people represent a strong voice in the global warming debate. They are not interested in CO2, freedom or markets, they are interested in their businesses and their profits — “produced” with the help of politicians.

Klaus also pointed out the huge dangers of alarmism as an excuse to impose increased totalitarian controls on people:

“Global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth-versus-propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the ‘established’ truth, although a lot of people—including top-class scientists—see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

[45. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:28 AM on Jan 19:]

45

Tina (#19) writes:

"what i find funny(in a cute sense) is Leonardo DiCaprio he has certainly taken his convictions to a high level of priority his all go green apartment and everything in it,what he drives,even what he eats..His heart is definitely in it nothing wrong with that either...."

What I find disturbing is the large number of global warm-mongers who fly in private jets, including that hypocrite DiCaprio. John Travolta lectures the masses on the evils of global warming, but owns five jets.

In fact, one of Al Gore's producers, Laurie David, abuses SUV drivers, but takes twice-yearly holidays in private jets, although one flight across the US burns as much fuel as a Hummer driven for a year.

I might take the global warm-mongers more seriously if they acted as if CO2 emissions were a problem.

[46. James said the following at 3:48 AM on Jan 19:]

46

Long time reader of Boundless, first time comment since I find this topic of considerable interest, as some of my graduate work dealt directly with climate modeling.

My concern comes from the perspective having worked with climate models. I don't wish to take the time to explain the details of the math, physics, or programming to anybody; I doubt anybody really wants to learn that, either. If it took me a full semester to learn how to run the specifics of the model; I am certainly not going to teach anybody in one measely response.

But I do want to include one detail. I just wanted to point out a few results that are not borne of any self interest, just the crunching of numbers. Simulations of the atmosphere with pre-1850 carbon levels suggest that the planet should be about 2 degrees cooler than it is right now; simply simulating the atmosphere with recorded carbon levels produces a much more realistic view of what our planet has experienced. I know 2 degrees does not seem like a lot at face value... who notices if the high temperature is 2 degrees different, right? But consider the global scale and convert each degree over each location into energy, and we quickly start talking about billions upon billions of Joules of energy, which does become a number of interest.

Do we know exactly what role human activity plays in this rise? No, as with most things in science, we cannot say with definite certainty - but we can say fairly confidently that the increase of vehicles and industry has played a prominent role in the increased CO2 levels. Furthermore, longer term, established climate cycles suggest we should be in a relatively cool period as well - but we aren't. The atmosphere is too big to ever be definite. But we've got to try to come up with a best estimate.

Other more tangible incidents around the world are indicative of a warming planet as well. Melting glaciers which provide fresh water. Islands disappearing or threatening to disappear due to rising sea levels. Rising sea levels raise the potential of devestation from tropical cyclones and ocean waves (tsunamis, for example) by a considerable amount by bringing the ocean shore closer to much of the world's population, as a great percentage

We can't collapse the global economy in a knee jerk reaction - for a number of obvious reasons - but at the same time, do we sit back and do nothing?

As for concerns about the accuracy of weather and climate forecasts... these are fair concerns but allow me to address this issue as well. I suggest that while forecasts are far from perfect, forecasts allow us to do wonderful things that save thousands of lives every year. We knew that Hurricane Ike would be a threat to the United States a full 14 days in advance, and as the storm grew and grew closer, the forecast narrowed on Houston. Early detection meant early warnings and evacuations; these evacuations made life immensely better for tens of thousands. Do not dismiss the math and science so quickly.

Another concern regards the fate of cold weather climates. Yes, fewer people would die of cold in northern climates. Balance this 'gain' with the strain that would be put on portions of the tropics, much of which is 3rd world. I would also argue that this benefit is not worth it.

I am only one meteorologist who believes God writes in beautiful languages of math and science. There is so much concern in the climatology community about point of views being expressed by those outside of our field because many outside of climatology who speak of global warming have a distinct political and economic interest, and when power and money become involved in an issue, the truth starts to fade away really, really fast. I trust professionals in other fields every day - climatologists, like many others, do not like to be told how to do our jobs by those who spend far less time regarding our issues, and we especially do not like to be demonized as biased and grant seeking because we come to conclusions that some people do not like.

Question global warming... responsibly. Question both sides of the debate.

Christ tells us in Matthew to make disciples of all the earth... I tend to believe this is a temporal command in addition to spacial. Do what we can for those who will come after us. No, we won't live long enough to truly know whether we are right or wrong. I do not find that a reasonable excuse for inaction.

Thank you for your time.

[47. James said the following at 4:53 AM on Jan 19:]

47

I’ll try to answer the points in order, 1 to 4, in the most objective manner that I can. We cannot sort this problem with hysterics, from either side.

The physical evidence for the prevalence of an enhanced greenhouse effect is possibly best seen in the contraction of the polar ice sheets and the retreat of glaciers that is now occurring at any accelerated rate, far faster than initial predictions. Couple this to the measures of temperature that have all shown an increase, I would suggest that this should be conclusive proof of a recent increase in global temperatures.

As for two, I do believe that our emissions are contributing to the increase in global temperature.

Is this bad overall? Well (and I haven’t read the other posts to check if these points have been made) let me share a scenario of what is likely to happen if temperatures keep climbing at their current rate. Firstly, the effect of the melting polar ice. With the disappearance of their habitats, many species that depend on the polar ice sheets (Polar bears, certain seal species) will either become extinct or will be driven into conflict with humans in a desperate search for food (think of the black bear behavior in Yellowstone National Park). So, there will be an accelerated loss of species.

Increasing sea levels will begin to submerge previously viable land mass, such as the Caiman Islands (where people are already losing their homes) and other countries that exist below sea level (the Netherlands for example). The influx of water will also negate the Gulf Stream, the warm water current that provides for the temperate climate of Britain and parts of Western Europe. This lead to more extremes of temperature (like most land docked countries), destroying much of the arable land within these countries and decreasing food production. This could lead to a mini Ice age in Northern Europe, and considering our ageing population and already over burdened health care system, this would be very, very bad.

As temperatures continue to rise, the increasing sea temperatures pose another massive problem. The greenhouse enhancing effect of CO2 are nothing compared to that of methane. What most people don’t realize is that there is a phenomenal amount of methane stored on our ocean floors. At the moment it is stable, but if sea temperature were to rise continually, there is a chance that this could be released. This is the Clathrate gun hypothesis, and it has happened before in previous mass extinctions. If this happened, the temperature increase could top 10oC and the result would be catastrophic to say the least. In general, when the Earth is put under extremes (temperature, atmospheric shock etc) it reacts sharply to correct its balance. The planet will always survive; we just might not be here to see it.

Finally, no, there is nothing we can do. The process has gone too far and the only way to undo the damage would either be to introduce mass amounts of S02 into the atmosphere to cool it or stop all car/plane etc usage now. That’s not going to happen, because we value our economies and our comfort more than our inheritance. We were supposed to take care of the garden, but we’ve turned it into a landfill site.

[48. Jeremy said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 19:]

48

Farmer Tom (#25):
"And in the secular world, I'm a Constitutionalist.

No moving target which changes with each new political face or with time."

That is an interesting position, one I have not seen seriously defended. You oppose a "moving target", meaning, I assume that you would support the original Constitution? Without the "moving" of amendments? Slavary should be legal, slaves should count as 3/5 of a person? Women should not be allowed to vote?

It seems like putting such blind faith in a single human construction is no less foolish than having blind faith in a particular political party.

[49. Ted Slater said the following at 10:48 AM on Jan 19:]

49

Lukas (#36) -- it does sound inaccurate, but it is supported by the evidence. Here's the relevant excerpt from the book identified in the footnote:

The heat wave in Europe in early August 2003 was a catastrophe of heartbreaking proportions. With more than 3,500 dead in Paris alone, France suffered nearly 15,000 fatalities from the heat wave. Another 7,000 died in Germany, 8,000 in Spain and Italy, and 2,000 in the United Kingdom.

While 35,000 dead is a terrifyingly large number, all deaths should in principle be treated with equal concern. Yet this is not happening. When 2,000 people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998-2000 saw about 47,000 cold deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks.

For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.

[50. kaarina said the following at 11:15 AM on Jan 19:]

50

I think the real interest we ought to be having in "saving the planet" is how eco-unfriendliness hurts other human beings. Some 3rd world countries sell rent space as landfills for 1st world countries as a source of income. Wasteful forms of agriculture are turning formerly verdant land into desert, and the misuse of the world's water supply is shrinking fresh water in the world. The pesticides used in the textile industry are endangering the lives of the workers who grow the cotton used for our blue jeans. Strip mining leaches heavy metals into the groundwater supply that makes miners and their communities extremely sick. Misuse of the woodland in the Amazon is depriving farmers of their livelihoods as the rich soil disappears with the trees. Abuse of the earth -- particularly for financial gain -- is directly related to the abuse of fellow man.

Having compassion for our neighbors -- and for the "strangers" we don't see -- is tied to a more "eco-friendly" world. Whether or not global warming is real we have to take responsibility for the way our actions as consumers impact our fellow human beings. This is far more important than reducing carbon emissions or eating less red meat.

[51. Ted Slater said the following at 11:43 AM on Jan 19:]

51

Dr. Sarfati (comments #44 and #45) -- good to see you here. I'm looking forward to publishing your series on Creation during the weeks leading up to "Darwin Day," Feb. 12. Your first one will appear this Friday on Boundless.

[52. farmer Tom said the following at 12:01 PM on Jan 19:]

52

40. Mac,

With out quoting everything you said,

Can I ask you a sincere question?

On what matters of truth are we Biblically allowed to remain silent?

It would create far less controversy is F on the F would take a position that all religions are equal, that everyone is going to go to heaven when they die.

They might receive more financial contributions if they would proclaim sodomy to be just another lifestyle choice.

And the enviro-communists would be oh so thrilled if F on the F would decide to ignore the communistic agenda behind the attempts to use the power of the state(government) to mandate human behavior with regards to the supposed man-made global warming. Since the Bible clearly teaches the principle of individual soul liberty, that each one is accountable before the Creator God for his/her actions, not only in the spiritual realm but in this physical world as well. Then it is fully within an adherence to Biblical teaching for F on the F to say that mankind on an individual basis is responsible before God for what he/she does with the "environment".

Read Romans 13, the government is to act in a defensive role, only when an actual crime has been committed should the government act. The only time government(the state) has any role in "environmental" issues is to punish evil doers. You pollute a stream, dumping the sewage from your cesspools of humanity,(cities) into the rivers, you should be punished.

[53. DP said the following at 12:09 PM on Jan 19:]

53

Mac #40:

I think you bring up a good point. Why distract people from the main point (Jesus) by taking such a stand against global warming?

Ted would likely say that it's because they 'love truth,' but I would contend that some truths are more important than others, and arguing about 'lesser truths' can be (and is) distracting from the way, THE TRUTH, and the life.

[54. Lukas said the following at 12:58 PM on Jan 19:]

54

Ted (#49)
I googled that article as well, but I still have trouble buying it. If you think about it, an extraordinarily hot and extended heat wave like the one in August of 2003 killed 35,000 people across western Europe. Then, with no other explanation, the article goes on to say that SIX TIMES that many people are dying in Europe EVERY year because of exessive heat. I just dont see how that is possible.

I also read the BBC article linked to the Discover Magazine article you quoted, and while it did mention Great Britain having the highest number of preventable cold-weather deaths in western Europe, it cited no numbers, certainly not 25,000 to 47,000 a year quoted in the Discover Magazine article. While I believe they make a valid point, I get the sense that the numbers are vastly exaggerated.

[55. Leah said the following at 4:42 PM on Jan 19:]

55

Alison (3) - actually, no, global warming means just that- warming. Scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming point out that since there have been discoveries of much of the planet cooling, global-warming-scientists have started changing their terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". Your average layman simply thinks "climate change" = "global warming" because it hasn't been explained to him that the scientists actually got it wrong when they claimed the earth was warming. Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado says “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’”

James (46) said Simulations of the atmosphere with pre-1850 carbon levels suggest that the planet should be about 2 degrees cooler than it is right now. The problem with climate simulators is that there is so much assumption programmed into them (and this is the cause of much faulty climate prediction). The particular simulator James is referring to takes into account pre-1850 carbon levels. It doesn't take into account the pattern of temperature or carbon levels that has been fluctuating for the past 3000 years.

I also do not believe anyone is advocating "sit(ting) back and do(ing) nothing". They're simply saying that humans are most probably NOT as responsible for "climate change" as the politicians tell us. Other planets are undergoing climate change, even the sun is, it is only logical that Earth would too. Not to mention, according to Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” And according to Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, "It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."

And then, according to prominent Hungarian physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni, “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan says “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

I think it's quite obvious our planet used to be a lot warmer than it currently is. Fossils of tropical plants have been found in Canada and on islands near Antarctica. Clearly, the amount of ice in those areas has not always been there. Why is it not logical that the earth might return to that scenario? And then I'm sure there'll be another ice age at some stage and the cycle will go around again.

I think the environmental problems we can have more impact on are deforestation and water pollution. These are things obviously caused by humans and causing more problems (both for the environment and other humans) than 'global warming'.

[56. JB said the following at 5:05 PM on Jan 19:]

56

Mike Theemling,

The reason I think it's important to look at the qualifications and financial interests of authorities cited in the global warming debate stems from what I said in my earlier post. As the vast majority of us are not able to assess the arguments for and against climate change ourselves, we rely on specialists to interpret the arguments for us. Thus, the selection of authorities in which to place our trust is absolutely key to the position we end up taking.

I'm certain, as you say, that there are people on both sides who exaggerate the evidence in order to further their own interests. So, clearly, we should be very careful who we trust. I think it is fair game to ask if the authority cited is well-qualified to offer an opinion on climate change or if they have financial backing from an organization with a vested interest in the results of their research. While acknowledging that academics have an interest in making their area of research exciting, I would argue that scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals ultimately have the greatest credibility in this debate because they are subject to public analysis of their reasoning by other scientists.

So what do you think? Shall we take our decision about global warming from the preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature? Or do you have another proposal?

[57. TINA said the following at 5:24 PM on Jan 19:]

57

#55 Leah-Thank you :) I by far am not educated on this subject in the secular sense at all...seen a few things read them talked about them.your post gave me greater insight it was interesting.made a lot of sense...things i was not aware of......gave me a different perspective...

[58. Melissa S. said the following at 5:27 PM on Jan 19:]

58

Tina-

Again, passion is not an emotion in a vacuum. If you have a passion for something true-- good. If you have a passion for something false-- and then tirelessly peddle it to millions of people...how can that be good?

If Al Gore is correct, wonderful. If he's not, how can he NOT be doing damage?? What is your statement that "what he stands for harms no one" based on? There is absolutely no merit in just standing firm for something. The merit is in standing firm for what is TRUE. Whether Al Gore is wrong or right is not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the assertion that simply standing firm for "______" (insert anything) is a virtue.

And I'm lost about the "protection" part of your comment. Not really sure what you're referring to there. You're welcome for the quotes around activist. :)

[59. James said the following at 5:31 PM on Jan 19:]

59

Leah(55)... I believe very, very strongly that 1998 is not a scientifically valid starting point for any long term temperature analysis. one particular weather event was very strong that season, resulting in anomolous warm temperatures even by the current warming trendlines, and in turn significant weather events worldwide. It was a spike in an upward trendline... a one year anomaly that was very extreme... and after that, temperatures did not build on 1998. But that does not mean we haven't seen some of the warmest years in recorded history in the past 10 years. It just means that 1998 was so extreme that we haven't topped it. That does not change the global warming argument. Saying that 2007 was the coldest year in the decade doesn't say a whole lot... we had 10 extremely warm years following 20 warm years.

You can talk about assumptions in climate models... that is fair. But the reality is that weather simulations do an excellent job, and that while climate models indeed are on a longer time scale... they take the EXACT same math, physics, and chemistry as other numerical models, not only used in meteorology but in many engineering practices. Should we take these simulations with some caution? Of course. That is a great challenge in atmospheric sciences... there are no absolutes, there are no definitives... but that does not mean we stop trying and stop doing what we can.

I do appreciate the counter arguments presented. There is a considerable amount of debate on some of those topics. I respectfully disagree with the findings of the Australian professor because cloud cover, while decreasing incoming solar radiation, would also decrease the amount of radiation that is aloud to leave at nights... which due to the properties of the H2O molecule would act as its own 'greenhouse gas'. I also find it interesting that the Hungarian scientist quoted contradicts the Australian researcher... one suggests more water vapor will be present which will cause cooling, while the other suggests less water vapor will be present... both arguments being ones I do not agree with.

The gentleman from Russia almost makes my case for me... in history, yes, global warming has preceded carbon emissions. That is one thing that is concerning in this discussion, that the carbon particulate rates are preceding the rise in global temperatures. As such, past climatic warming events are not always exact replicas of what is happening now.

I also disagree with the idea (very, very strongly) that climatologists have changed global warming to climate change as part of some idea that we are trying to get around being wrong. That's just not true and I would consider that line of attack to be a little bit insulting and unfair. Global warming simply refers to rising planet temperatures. Few dispute the idea that the planet has warmed both in the last 100 years and more rapidly in the last 30. Climate change refers to a variety of impacts that come with changes in long term weather patterns. There is no malice in talking about different terms; it is merely using different terminology to discuss differing ideas.

Yes... our planet did use to be a lot warmer. So, yes, natural causes do warm our planet. The problem with that is two-fold: that still doesn't explain why industry wouldn't now be contributing to rising CO2 rates, and also that now we have billions of people living in places that would be under water if such a climate were recreated.

I think we are on the same page at the end of the day... pollutions are something I think we are all interested in, they create a cleaner, more breathable environment, and cleaner air operations would decrease carbon emissions and ease long term human influences on climate changes.

[60. Keith said the following at 9:24 PM on Jan 19:]

60

No one can be absolutely certain that global warming is real, but in science we can't be absolutely certain of anything.

All we can do is examine the evidence, build theories, test those theories, and confirm or dismiss those theories on what we measure. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the theory that global warming is real and is being caused by human beings. That isn't to say there isn't room for debate; there is room for debate about all scientific theories. But policy needs to molded after the best available scientific evidence known at the time, and the best evidence available right now states that global warming is a grave danger that threatens to kill hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Recognizing that global warming, caused primarily by human being, will kill countless people around the world is part of being pro-life. Being pro-life isn't just about opposing abortion and euthanasia; it is about opposing anything that causes the death of innocent human beings around the global, including human induced global warming.

As for the "taxes" and "liberty" points, I want to point out that taxes linked to climate change actually increase your "liberty" to pay higher or lower taxes. It is simple: Choose activies that don't (or minimally) increase global warning, and you get to pay lower taxes. Choose activities that contribute to global warming and pay higher taxes. Before carbon taxes, people didn't have that liberty. Now carbon taxes are being imposed (at least where I live), one's "liberty" has increased, and people are free to choose if they want to pay higher or lower taxes - I like that.

[61. Kelly said the following at 5:39 AM on Jan 20:]

61

Again, I realise I don't think like the average person.

Yes, pollution is bad.

But running out of fossil fuels? A good thing, we will be FORCED to find replacements.

Sure, it's sad that people have to move if their land ends up underwater. But you know, that's happened throughout history. Islands form and islands sink, volcanoes birth new mountains, or wipe out a civilisation.

We can't control that. Why should we try to? God made us a CHANGING planet.

And if that means a few species die off, well, yes that's sad as well, but throughout history, thousands of species have become extinct. (Dinosaurs, anyone?)

Because when it comes down to it, does it REALLY matter?

[62. TINA said the following at 1:05 PM on Jan 20:]

62

#59 James-----Ohhh boy.....I am naive in this subject..you AND Leah both have excellent points..I'm a little twisted sister on this one because i agree with both..HELP...:}

[63. JB said the following at 3:37 PM on Jan 20:]

63

Hey, look, evidence.

97% of climatologists believe that the Earth is warming and that humans play a significant role. I'm going to defer to the better judgment of 97% of the experts.

[64. Jethro said the following at 4:20 PM on Jan 20:]

64

Oh JB (#63), you fool, why on earth would you side with the vast majority of the scientific community. That would be so... 'unBoundless'

For the record, yes I also agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Sorry Dr Sarfati, your scienticians don't convince me.

[65. Ted Slater said the following at 4:55 PM on Jan 20:]

65

JB (#63) -- I find that study suspect. The data came from people who "were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments." It doesn't say that it was a random sample; the individuals who received questionnaires could very well have been hand-selected. We cannot assume that there was no bias in this study.

Also, note that that 97% number is from "climatologists who are active in climate research" -- of course those who receive $$$ to research this subject are going to promote AGW as a real and dangerous thing ... that needs to be studied.

A study released a year ago reported that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." Maybe instead of just citing a study that reinforces one view or another, we should do the hard work of examining the evidence, looking for inconsistencies or holes in popular theories, questioning what people's motives are for espousing a particular view.

If you're content with your answer to questions #1 and #2, have you considered wrestling with the other two questions?

Keith (#60) -- you wrote, "Now carbon taxes are being imposed (at least where I live), one's 'liberty' has increased, and people are free to choose if they want to pay higher or lower taxes." That doesn't make any sense. "Liberty" means "freedom" -- freedom to do something, to acquire something. If a carbon tax has made purchasing something more prohibitive, then it's the OPPOSITE of freedom; it's restricting. "Liberty = restriction"? Maybe in some Orwellian world. Not in mine.

[66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:00 PM on Jan 20:]

66

Jeremy (#48) brings up the usual furphy by leftists about "slaves should count as 3/5 of a person". This was actually a way to weaken the power of the slave states. If they were countes as a full person, the slave states would use those numbers to strengthen their power, yet these slaves themselves had no voting power. This would mean that their very numbers would make it impossible to overthrow the system.

Leftists talk about a “living and breathing” Constitution that “evolves”—but always towards the liberal left, it seems. But if the Constitution is evolving, there may as well be no Constitution at all! For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed, or changed properly by amendments. In reality, instead of the rule of law, we have the rule of judges. One must also wonder how elected officials, including Obamov, can logically swear allegiance to a Constitution if its meaning keeps changing at the whim of judges?

I would also suggest that this loss of the rule of objective written law is largely responsible for the high rate of litigation (and threats of litigation, and a chessmaster like me knows that a threat is stronger than its execution). While a defendant can read the wording of the law and even study precedents, he can’t read the minds of the judges, so can’t be sure that a case won’t go against him. So he may pay the extortion money to avoid going to court. And alas he passes on the costs to his customers, so we are all harmed by the litigious society.

Just to show how silly this ‘living document’ nonsense is, think of chess again. I now have a sure-fire plan to become World Champion—find an arbiter who decided that under ‘evolving standards’, he could decide that the Laws of Chess comprise a ‘living document’ that allowed me to play two moves in a row at a moment of my choosing while my opponent is denied that righ.

[67. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:53 AM on Jan 21:]

67

Question about CO2 emissions and controlling them.

From what I understand, cows generate the most CO2, right? An animal that any environment would want to protect...right?

I apologize for my limited biology knowledge...I love biology (especially plant biology) but I'm really horrible at it. Though in my defense, it was because I attempted to understand rather than simply memorize =p

Trees, plants, greenery - they take CO2 and live off it...they're waste product is Oxygen. Which is what WE need to survive (and any other animal) which we use and produce CO2. Its a balance.

Two ideas -
1) If we are so worried about CO2 emissions, why not plant more broad-leaf plants? Not pine, as pine needles have less surface area to absorb CO2. Plant them in your yard, toss apple seeds out the window in a Michigan field...

2) Ted (i think) mentioned earlier that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. Is it possible that increased CO2 emissions could've contributed to that? After-all, the "greenhouse effect" gets its name from the most effective way of mass producing plant-life - in a greenhouse. Though I'd think that in a glass encasement filled primarily with plants that the main atmospheric element would be Oxygen...however, greenhouses primarily use manure for plant fertilizer because of its CO2 emissions. Plants need it.

Just some thoughts.

Now I'm going to apply my warped understanding of biology to Lukas' questions.

Our bodies natural temperature is 96.7 degrees. That is normal for us. In florida, a massive heat wave is 120 degrees. In Europe, I can't imagine it getting much hotter than that. That's less than a 30 deviation from our normal temperature. To keep our homes comfortable and provide enough cooling to prevent hyperthermia (excess body temperature that leads to heat strokes), we would only need to pay to bring the temperature down 30 degrees. Yes, 96.7 is a bit on the warm side, but if you are smart, drink lots of water, and avoid activity that raises your body temp, its survivable.

Now, extreme cold, on the other hand...people laugh when I mention that it gets to 30 degrees in Florida in the winter. Yes, compare that with -30. In Canada. I'd think that Europe would be around there...-40 to -50, probably. What's the difference from the normal body temperature? 130-140 degrees? That's a lot. And just think...I can survive in 30 degree weather no problem. I don't need Heat in the winter around here and outside I guess is kinda survivable... maybe not. People still die from hypothermia in 30 degree weather. Imagine the cost it would take to raise your home's temperature from -50 to 40 or 50 degrees. That's a LOT of money. I spend $150/month in AC for my apartment in the summer. Friends in Canada pay $400/month for heat in the winter. That's a lot of money. There are people who wouldn't be able to afford that. More people who can't afford the heat it takes to survive than can't afford the cooling it takes to survive.

Also take into effect the fact that to keep your body temp up, you need to be physically active. To keep it cool, you relax. Its easier to relax 24-7 than it is to remain physically active 24-7. You have to sleep at some time. And if your body is reaching hypothermic levels, sleep is irresistable...and fatal.

So, those numbers really aren't that ridiculous with regards to proportion.

[68. James said the following at 2:10 PM on Jan 21:]

68

Ted(65)... I find the questioning of scientific motives to be very vague at best. Do you have evidence to support your suggestion that practicing climatologists merely pursue what will give them research money? Because I have 3 years in a university climate lab that suggests that research money will always be around for a variety of projects that are useful, especially in agriculture... so there really isn't a need to pursue any one agenda for financial sake. Research and study grants were pursued for the sake of interest and truth in my lab... not to fit a political agenda. The NIV Bible mentions the word truth over 200 times... I guess I have found a lot of joy and reward in working with people who place so much value in the same virtue, the pursuit of truth. Practicing climatologists are a long way from other scientists, even meteorologists... and there are reasons that strong consensus exists in the community. Not for any conspiracy, but because math and physics tell us many of the same things. Published scientists is a long way from practicing climatologists... and shouldn't that matter? One wouldn't go to a brain surgeon for flu symptoms, would they? Both are doctors, but every scientist has their specialty. If we are going to talk about climate patterns, why not have studies that talk to only scientists studying the climate?

If we are going to question motives, why not question the motives of that Daily Tech link? One quick glance at every article on that page makes it very, very clear which side of the discussion that particular blog is on. Even with that in mind, though, I would like to see a detailed review of those 528 papers. And the author of the blog makes a fairly substantial mistake, which is assuming that global warming and climate change are the same thing. As mentioned previously, this isn't true... climate change articles can refer to any number of effects, and they can also refer to local climate effects... for example, if a part of the planet is getting cooler, then the scientists in that region are going to want to study what regional cooling will do to that area. Not every portion of the planet is warming at the same rate, and thus effects will differ from place to place. But none of those regional patterns change the global argument. Likewise, it would be just as irresponsible to suggest that the entire planet is warming at the rate that Alaska is warming. But there are very few that try to make that argument.

A more accurate study would search articles based on global temperature trends, and to see how many fit into each category: explicit man-made warming, implicit man made warming, explicit natural warming, implicit natural warming, and an even blend. Heck, this may have given me an idea for how to spend some free time.

[69. k. said the following at 4:24 PM on Jan 21:]

69

James -- I enjoyed reading your comments. Very thoughtful and well-reasoned!

[70. Jeremy said the following at 4:34 PM on Jan 21:]

70

Jonathan Sarfati (#66):

"But if the Constitution is evolving, there may as well be no Constitution at all! For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed, or changed properly by amendments."

This illustrates my point perfectly. The Constitution has evolved a number of times, through amendments. If rules have to be fixed to mean anything, then amendments should not be permitted. If it is possible to change a rule, then it is not fixed. You cannot have it both ways.

That tends to be my problem with those that are staunch Constitutionalists and attempt to base their political beliefs on nothing else -- they ignore the (hopefully now obvious) failings of the original document. Putting one's blind trust in a political party is ill-advised, of course*. But putting one's blind trust in a human document is no less so. That is all I was saying.

* Perhaps I shouldn't say "of course", that seems to be a minority viewpoint on this blog...

[71. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:47 PM on Jan 21:]

71

Jeremy: you miss my point. The Founders realized that the Constitution might need changing, so prescribed the proper procedure, i.e. Amendments voted for by a supermajority in Congress.

The problem now is that instead of changing the Constitution in a transparent and accountable way, activist judges merely declare that the constitution means what they say it means. But since we have no idea of the next judicial whim, it makes law and the Constitution meaningless. I.e. meaningless in the sense of genuine law that tells people in advance what they can or cannot do.

I am Australian BTW, so I have blind trust in neither an American political party nor an American document. But for any document to be useful, its meaning must be fixed and knowable in advance. This applies to the Bible, in which I do have complete trust—but not blind trust!

[72. Leah said the following at 8:32 PM on Jan 21:]

72

Samaria (12): "proven science"?? Bahahahahahahaha. AS IF. Tell that to the scientists who USED to be on the UN's IPCC and have now backed out because they've realised what a con it is.

Here is a quote from a Japanese scientist from the IPCC... Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Or how about this one... “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

Then here's another ex-IPCC member... “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Not quite as "proven" as you might think. Somethign tells me you've been ingesting a lot of media-hype rather than scientific research.

James (59) - I don't think any of the scientists quoted are purporting to know what is causing global warming, or if it is, or whatever. The point they are making is that the current "global warming" hype the media banters about is false. There are dozens of other scenarios that may be true. But the current idea isn't. I am sure many of the scientists quoted would disagree on some aspects- some would say global warming is happening (but not due to humans), others would say it's not happening at all, others would say there's nothing we can do about it, still others might suggest we can have a little impact but nothing significant. What they all agree on, though, is that the current media-hyped theories (that global warming is bad and unnatural and completely due to humans) are wrong.

You also said I also disagree with the idea (very, very strongly) that climatologists have changed global warming to climate change as part of some idea that we are trying to get around being wrong. Well, that was a climatologist who came up with that, not me, so maybe you can take it up with him.

You also said I believe very, very strongly that 1998 is not a scientifically valid starting point for any long term temperature analysis. I don't think you could make any predictions based on patterns from a starting point like 1998 either. It's only highlighting part of the pattern, and this is a cooling part. Surely, if 1998 was simply an anomoly, temperatures would have dropped in 1999 but then began increasing again? It sounded to me like this climatologist was making the point that temperatures have not increased since then.

And saying Saying that 2007 was the coldest year in the decade doesn't say a whole lot conveniently misses out the next part, which says 2007 was the coldest year in a millennium.

And really, the fact that the weather is behaving differently to how the IPCC predicted should be enough of a red flag for us to realise that they've got something wrong.

You also said I respectfully disagree with the findings of the Australian professor because cloud cover, while decreasing incoming solar radiation, would also decrease the amount of radiation that is aloud to leave at nights... which due to the properties of the H2O molecule would act as its own 'greenhouse gas'.
You have me confused here, because the Australian guy spoke about carbon dioxide-driven warming, not cloud cover or solar radiation, so I'm missing the link here.

I'd also tend to give some credit to Ted when he said Also, note that that 97% number is from "climatologists who are active in climate research" -- of course those who receive $$$ to research this subject are going to promote AGW as a real and dangerous thing ... that needs to be studied. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who used to work for NASA and has a PhD in meteorology, said “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical (of man-made global warming)." I think this speaks strongly of a scientific community which has been made to shut up by money.

[73. Lukas said the following at 10:11 PM on Jan 21:]

73

Christina (in green)-

First let me apologize in advance for doing a little nit-picking. I am a man who enjoys accuracy, so dont take it personally :)

If I remember correctly, the reason there are more trees now than 100 years ago has less to do with atmospheric CO2 levels and more to due with logging. As mature virgin forests are logged, this opens up the forest floor to much more sunlight and allows more numerous early and mid-sucessional species to abound. Tree farming as an industry has also sprung up in the last 100 years.

Human body temperature averages around 98.6. Florida's record high was 109 degrees, and in 2003, England, Germany, and France set all-time record high temperatures of 101, 104, and 111 respectively. With regard to hyperthermia, there are many issues at play besides absolute temperature difference. Anytime your body cant dump excess heat fast enough, you run the risk of overheating, even if the temperature is below body temperature. So many people died in the summer of 2003 in Europe because they simply lack the air-conditioning infrastructure to deal with it because they rarely need it. They are however more adept at dealing with the cold, because it is cold in western Europe every winter. That being said, I do think the RATIOS of extreme temperature deaths are accurate for the reasons that you stated. I just think the magnitude is very hard to believe. Think about it: the author of this article would have us believe that over 6 TIMES the total number of deaths from the South Asian tsunami of 2004 are occurring EVERY YEAR in one of the most industrialized areas on earth. My best guess is that somewhere along the line the figures had an extra zero or two tacked onto the end, and they were just passed along.

[74. dania said the following at 12:42 AM on Jan 22:]

74

Whether or not the earth is warming, it won't hurt to be energy efficient just to be on the safe side.

[75. TINA said the following at 8:00 AM on Jan 22:]

75

#72 Leah-you amaze me:)......Does anyone wonder if they did this kind of debating during the "Ice" age???

[76. IMO said the following at 8:23 AM on Jan 22:]

76

"Putting one's blind trust in a political party is ill-advised, of course*....

* Perhaps I shouldn't say "of course", that seems to be a minority viewpoint on this blog...
"

Wow that's kind of an offensive statement to make. And after reading many comments and posts, I believe most of us on here are heavy thinkers, not "blindly" trusting anything!

[77. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:51 AM on Jan 22:]

77

Lukas,

No offense. I was simply brainstorming and thought it could add some ideas, cuz I know they are founded in SOMETHING. I don't claim to be an expert in botany and biology...I just have struggled for so long to actually comprehend it. And these are just some of my unscientific observations and understandings of how it might work.

Perhaps the logging industry trees aren't the ones we need? Lol. Like I said, pine needles have less surface area for CO2 absorption. Just seemed to me that more trees could help this "excess" CO2 problem.

As far as the other subject, the magnitude is kinda surprising. Glad we agree on proportions though :)

[78. TINA said the following at 10:46 AM on Jan 22:]

78

OK I have a few simple questions....What if anything can we, should we or should not do? besides prayer...Dr.Sarfati comes with much educational wisdom...Author and co-author of many books.Not to mention grueling years of study...Leah,your research on this subject is amazing....so back to my question?besides pray for the God given land is there any TRUTH to what people like Al Gore are promoting?And if so what can we do about it? I am wondering because i am getting mixed signals on this issue that my brain is trying to understand:P

[79. Brent1776 said the following at 1:36 PM on Jan 22:]

79

Tina:

- Be extremely skeptical of any politicians alarmism. This isn't the first big "crisis" that's been marketed to the public. In fact it is a recognized strategy for rallying public support. See William James' Moral Equivalent of War.

- Follow the money. Al Gore has large investments in carbon credit trading. (Generation Investment Management)

- Keep human nature in mind always. If you think science or any other discipline is not affected by pride, politics, power, money, greed, envy, think again. My uncle is a doctor and his field is rife with self interest and pride. He has experienced first hand the pettiness that runs through humanity in a discipline that you would think would be one of the most altruistic.

-Did I mention, be skeptical?

[80. Kim said the following at 3:07 PM on Jan 22:]

80

I don't have to use fancy words and alot of space to say that - God created everything and will end everything when he chooses. He is in control and I believe and trust in Him. You can call it global warming, climate change or whatever, but His word (the Bible) says that the worlds or mans wisdom is foolishness.
He tells us what is to come.
Mark 13:22-37, Matthew 24:3-51

[81. James said the following at 9:53 PM on Jan 22:]

81

Leah(72)...

I do want to talk about one thing in more detail. We haven't been cooling since 1998. We cooled between 1998 and 1999, and then began (continued, really) to warm again. I am going to try to find an easy analogy that best describes what happened with 1998. Let's say it's May, and the temperatures in the first few days are 50, 54, 58, 60. Then for some reason it's 85 the next day, which for that location is a record. The days following that are 65, 70, 75, 80 or so. The overall trend in that pattern is clearly warming, and while yes you cooled from the record event, (like the earth cooled between 1998 and 1999), there is very little significance in that, as the longer term trend is still upward. Simply put... much like liberals like John Kerry use individual events that are too small in space and time to credit/blame on global warming, 1998 is too small temporarily to attribute to a shift in climate change as well. Start in 1999, and we are warming. Start in 1997, and we are warming. Start at most any year in the 1980-2006 time frame and we warm. (rise in industry in Asia). Start at almost any time frame during the Industrial Revolution... we are warming.

I understand being skeptical of liberal based media blocks and politicians like Al Gore. But that goes for everything that the media and politicians put out. That goes for what Boundless puts out. Why are BL and Focus on the Family putting out statements about global warming that seem remarkably similar to big business, Republican, and FoxNews talking points, for example? This is a big discussion with uncertainty and great consequences. Ask both questions. Ask respectfully.

I just want to share one personal bit to end my contributions. I have done weather forecasting for friends and family since college, which has been a while. A couple of events changed my perspective forever on responsible prognostications. Most notably was Hurricane Katrina near familiar territories in the gulf coast. There is a 'worst case' scenario in every potential weather and climate event, and they are worth exploring/discussing. Statements of dire and doom never seem so bad when the worst case scenario actually happens. I (and many in science) feel it an imperative to give the public the information of what is possible to happen. If the planet DOES warm 3,4,5 degrees, are we going to be ready for it?

I appreciate a civil discussion. Be blessed, everybody.

[82. TINA said the following at 12:51 PM on Jan 23:]

82

#79 Brent 1776-Thank you for helping:]..but now:}did you read what # 81 James wrote? I realize and know what the biblical view and expectations are...them are not my questions or confusions...but..BLAHHHHHH....im still twisted sister on the science level......

[83. TINA said the following at 9:35 AM on Jan 24:]

83

#81 James~After re-reading your post and others..even though i am not educated in this i think you put it best...thank you....:o)also thanks for typing it in a way where people such as myself without the educational back ground can understand it...

[84. Philip said the following at 10:09 PM on Jan 27:]

84

I appreciated the article for setting out questions to think through, though the consideration of the answers seems unhelpfully selective, though some fair points were made.

Regarding the human influence of question 2, I do think the quite possibly unprecedented nature of warming is very suggestive of human influence. I'm not sure what other explanations fit the current situation. It is fair to look at how much do model assumptions matter. I suspect its not much, since scientists do try to model accurately, but its a valid issue to consider.

In reading on the topic I was struck by the wide-ranging possible climate changes being talked about beyond what Jay considered. Considering question 3 responsibly involves much more than moderate temperature increases in temperate parts of the globe, eg. rising sea levels, increased flooding and increased drought.

I do not understand why people are so skeptical of the substantial scientific consensus. (BTW even from Ted's link 45% implicit/explicit endorsement vs 6% rejection.) Sure it is not proven, it has its critics, there are presumably some pressures on scientists to support it, politicians and journalists misreport it, but these things do not justify significant suspicion, let alone confidence that the consensus is wrong.

The analysis of question 4 must include the financial and other costs caused by climate change directly, including costs for defending against its effects. Globally it could well be the poorest nations who suffer. The analysis should also look at the cost/benefit of a full solution, not just initial Kyoto targets.

[85. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:58 PM on Mar 17:]

85

See also Shallow science and its victims by Melanie Phillips, Spectator, 15 March 2009.

The world’s largest-ever gathering of skeptics of global warm-mongering took place in New York City on March 8-10, 2009, to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”

Headliners among the 80 presenters included:

• Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and of the European Union. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he declared, “Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world.”

• American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon—a geologist Ph.D. who has contended he has seen “too many of [my] colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming.”

• William Gray, Colorado State University, who claims global warming alarmists have hijacked the American Meteorological Society.

• Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.

• Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph—thoroughly discredited in scientific circles—supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases.

• Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.

• Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

• Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

• Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, who will present new data showing “the most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.”

[1. IMO said the following at 3:08 PM on Jan 16:]

1

Weird. I though the article emphasised being good stewards. We can have differing opinions after that...

Whoever is disgusted by this article really needs to get a reality check. Why the rage? There are way more disgusting things out there. This article isn't one of them.

Should I dismiss biblical counsel if it's not from a pastor (with a counseling degree?)

Sure we can disagree on a lot of things ...but can we do it in a civil way?

[2. TINA said the following at 3:22 PM on Jan 16:]

2

I think we have to all do are part....however,as we all know we are not going to stop it...its obvious...they can collect billions for the cause GOD has already spoken of whats to come this is part of his divine plan for the great day of his sons return.....

[3. Alison said the following at 5:23 PM on Jan 16:]

3

Questions like these are important to ask, and I agree with the tone of the article. I especially liked his reference to how less people will die in areas where they are very cold--it's true.
But it's clear the author is relatively uninformed about the issue at hand--he only refers to the literal interpretation of the two words stuck together and uses this as his viewpoint. One of the most basic of basic things to understand is that Global Warming refers to more extreme change--meaning some areas are going to experience extreme cold once in a while too as the earth realigns itself over the next few thousand years.
Surely it's possible he left that core piece out unintentionally, but it's usually one of those flags of rhetorical significance that shows someone spent a week researching a topic that takes years upon years to grasp with any authority.

I think as Christians we are commanded to humble ourselves and realize where we are not in a position to speak with much authority (which is *not* to say we shouldn't ask questions and discuss the issues). Sure, we should think and analyze and come to our own conclusions that were drawn in a God-honouring way. But we shouldn't be teaching these conclusions in areas where we are ill-informed to people less informed than us. Our job is to enable them to go learn about and navigate the world themselves.

[4. Becky said the following at 5:24 PM on Jan 16:]

4

What bothers me is to many Christians use the global warming extremist as an excuse not to care about the environment at all. No one knows for sure just how bad global is or isn't but you can't deny that humans have a huge impact on this earth and that impact is not always good. Pollution is terrible and we are using up our fossil fuels (and whether you believe they'll be gone in 10 years or 100 is besides the point, one day they will be gone so why not try and find ways to replace them) and as "stewards of the earth" instead of sitting on the sidelines arguing that humans are doing nothing wrong we should be out in the fore front on issues that we know we've had an impact on, like smog and landfills and destroying forest. Like the article said having dominion over the earth is not an excuse to ruin it.

[5. Jarod said the following at 5:29 PM on Jan 16:]

5

This is one of the best articles I have ever read against global warming. Perhaps because I have some of the same doubts, but it really questions what some of the major assumptions global warming is based on.
In the 11th Century, there were so many colonists in Greenland that the Vatican deemed fit for them to have their own bishop. That period was way warmer than it is today as Greenland is largely covered in ice.
As well, the in 1650's, there was a mini-iceage as the war between the Dutch and English was cut short early every year because of ice during in the North Sea.
The earth's climate and local temperatures have varied so much in the past 1000 years that to make assumptions of impending global catastrophe based on just over 100 years of data is absurd.

[6. Jacob said the following at 5:35 PM on Jan 16:]

6

When the "only" way to save our planet is to implement a sweeping socialist agenda, I am doubtful.

[7. Mike Miller said the following at 5:45 PM on Jan 16:]

7

Jay Richards, in my opinion, does a good job on answering the questions stated in the article. He showed that
maybe the world is barking at nothing. He logical shows that global warming is not an important issue because the scientific data is simple not there.

As for the first e-mail, I think a Christian should natural question anything that comes from humans. Science has moved away from scientific method to finding data to fit what they want to prove. So more than ever should Christians examine these issues when the come up.

[8. Sheridan said the following at 5:48 PM on Jan 16:]

8

My dad always says,
'school teaches you WHAT to think, not HOW to think.'

And I see it more and more today...so many people believe the first thing they are told. They dont question things anymore because they take their teachers, professors, doctors, scientists, word for it. News Flash. All these people get it wrong, continually...regardless of their degrees. Think for yourself people! Do some research OUTSIDE of the mainstream for a change, and then make your decision. So what if Al Gore TELLS you something he believes to be true? You question every article boundless publishes dont you? Thats good. Now question every global warming article too.

[9. has a bio degree said the following at 5:53 PM on Jan 16:]

9

To answer the questions:
1. It's tough to tell if the earth is warming. Some evidence suggests that it peaked around 1998 and is starting to cool again. Try telling a New Englander about global warming this year and he'll bury you in snow.
2. I think it's profoundly arrogant to think that the human population could have a significant impact on the biosphere we call earth. A cow makes a bigger carbon footprint than an SUV. Sure, there are ways we can minimize our impact on the environment, but we need to realize that (a) we share the world with millions of organisms that all contribute to the environment and (b) the earth was obviously designed to sustain chronic and acute impacts of all sorts. We just aren't as big a deal as we think.
3. No. The earth will cycle through warm and cool spells. It's been happening for centuries.
4. See #2 - we just are less significant than we think.

[10. Liln said the following at 6:15 PM on Jan 16:]

10

I thought the article did a very good job. Whether or not global warming is happening or not, isn't the point. The point is, do we have to worry?

I wrote my college research paper on this subject this fall. The more I dug, the more I found that some of the dots people are claiming are connected really aren't. They'd like them to be, but there's no clear evidence aiming them in that direction.

I had to gather information from an interview. I chose the local meteorologist and she was fully skeptical of it. One of the biggest points she made and was a drive in my thesis, is that we've only had accurate temperature recordings for 150-ish years. The general consensus of those who believe the earth goes through temperature cycles, put this around every 1500 years. So, how can we say the jump has never been before? How can we prove that this is (or isn't) a catastrophe?

One final thought. Within the past year, year and a half, the term "global warming" has become outdated. Now it's "climate change." The scientists who claimed the earth was headed for major spikes, now aren't sure if we're going to continue climbing, or if we will decrease. Interesting, yes?

[11. Simon said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 16:]

11

Why are people disgusted? Because they've accepted the tenets of the religion of environmentalism and Gaia worship, laid out by High Priest Al Gore, and this article asks people to question that religion.

[12. Samaria said the following at 7:14 PM on Jan 16:]

12

This is the science FotF chooses to focus on? When are the conservatives going to stop fighting against proven science? Once the conservatives start admitting and accepting the truth of evolution and the manipulation put behind Expelled, then we'll talk about Al Gore's so-called lies behind An Inconvenient Truth.

I think it's obvious that global warming is not only a reality, but that it is affecting this world. I don't understand why there is any doubt; honestly, it doesn't make much sense to deny it, especially since it's been proven to be dangerous. I love considering the other perspective, but this is kind of ridiculous, excuse me if that comes off impolitely.

[13. Ultraviolet said the following at 7:21 PM on Jan 16:]

13

I'll grant that we may not KNOW that the earth is warming, whether it's a good or a bad thing, or whether we're even causing it...BUT does the fact that we don't know for sure mean we shouldn't do anything? Maybe not spending a huge amount of money on Kyoto, but the idea that we can make a difference on the environment shouldn't be ignored. Because if global warming is false, and we work "against" it, then we lose nothing. If global warming is true, and we DON'T do anything, we lose everything. Maybe we can't stop it, but I think we can help...Jay Richards seems to trivialize what we can do by saying "it wouldn't do squat." I think trying to do "squat" is a lot better than not trying at all. So what difference does it make if any of the assumptions scientists make don't turn out to be true...we can still try our best to take care of our planet.

[14. Charles Pierce, Australia said the following at 7:35 PM on Jan 16:]

14

I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:

http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce

[15. SMC said the following at 7:48 PM on Jan 16:]

15

I don't know about you, but after spending the past few days in sub-zero temperatures, it's hard to think about global warming. :)

[16. A.M.C. said the following at 8:44 PM on Jan 16:]

16

Such a response is not surprising, considering that some people (and I do mean people on both sides of the political spectrum) do make the mistake of being open-minded in most situations except when people's views disagree with theirs. (Haven't we received the same response when the issue is [atheistic] evolution, for example?)

==> Then again, I wonder why there are such ardent defenders of the "human-caused global warming as an evil" theory. Could it be that environmentalism--in its extreme form--is now a profitable industry? (In other words, perhaps certain special interest groups can only make money if the public is brainwashed on the idea that human-caused global warming is an evil that must be eradicated at all costs?)

[17. Ted Slater said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 16:]

17

Becky (#4) -- you said that "many Christians use the global warming extremist as an excuse not to care about the environment at all." I'm just not seeing that. Do you have any specific examples? It just sounds to me like the cliche I hear on TV, something I've never, ever seen in the real world.

You express concern about "smog and landfills and destroying forests." I have concerns about those things as well. Who doesn't?

Please know that "pollution" is different from so-called "greenhouse gases." "Greenhouse gases" include water vapor, CO2 (the stuff that you exhale) and methane (the stuff that you toot).

We're all against pollution. The thing is, we can't help but produce so-called "greenhouse gases." Indeed, without these "greenhouse gases," the earth would be uninhabitably cold. We would all die if we banned all "greenhouse gases."

Have you worked through the four questions posed by the author? I've found them to be really helpful.

[18. Melissa S. said the following at 12:16 AM on Jan 17:]

18

That was a fantastic article!!

And here is the blog post I knew would happen, although I expected a lot more flat out dismissal of the article and other comments in the same line. Instead, what a pleasant surprise! It's mixed up this time. There are some original comments from people who seem to have thinking skills. Such a refreshing change. I almost didn't look at the comments since it was a global warming post but I'm glad I did.

Jacob #6- lol! That one doubt makes a brilliant argument. Socialist agendas...be doubtful, be very doubtful.

[19. TINA said the following at 12:57 AM on Jan 17:]

19

I don't think everything Al Gore stands for is a lie.He has strong convictions,concerns,interest,whatever you want to call it to raise awareness to the opposing problem at hand...He is a activess for what he believes in...really nothing wrong with that....what i find funny(in a cute sense) is Leonardo DiCaprio he has certainly taken his convictions to a high level of priority his all go green apartment and everything in it,what he drives,even what he eats..His heart is definitely in it nothing wrong with that either......however, will it add one extra day to the earth existence?We as a race have already set the stage for the damage since the beginning of time....And of coarse should make a effort while we are still alive to take better care of the land the LORD has given to us.......so we have a better quality life while still living,or for as many generations are to come after us............It is good to have a passion in life to stand for what you believe in...if ya don't you will fall for anything......imagine if Jesus gave up on his passion to save us?I know me personally would be in big trouble...

[20. BDB said the following at 1:14 AM on Jan 17:]

20

OK, let me give you an answer from one of my Biology professors, 17 years ago, when someone asked about global warming.

He shrugged and said, "30 years ago, everyone was worried about global cooling." That was the scientfic consensus.

But then he drew on the chalkboard what you would need to prove the theory. You'd need temperature and gas sensors in every cubic meter of the atmosphere and every cubic meter of the ocean to collect data - and you'd need the data going back 300 years.

The data set doesn't exist. The models have to be incomplete. If our models were mathematically accurate, we could predict the weather next month. If we can't predict next month, we can't predict 100 years from now. All the models are based on assumptions that prove their desired thesis - that the earth is warming.

And here's what should frighten you: this economic meltdown? It's ALSO based on complicated mathematical models. Trillons of dollars of mortgage-backed securities were priced and insured based on these models. Lots of smart people were paid a lot of money to make these risk models.

And they were wrong. None of the risk models predicted a bursting bubble like this. Even though 3 years ago the "financial consensus" was that collateralized debt obligations were the right thing to do.

If we can spend that much money on financial models that are incomplete, and we spend far less on climate modeling, how much more incomplete are he climate models?

Frankly, it reminds me of the Y2K panic. I remember precisely when I decided Y2K was empty hype: when the seminar at my church said "an executive in the power industry" said they ran a test, and the power plant shut down.

In that instant I realized, "I'll bet it was a marketing executive, not an engineering executive." Uh-oh.

[21. Lori said the following at 1:56 AM on Jan 17:]

21

I feel strongly inclined to agree with Becky (4) and Jacob (6). I know that a benchmark in my childhood was how my father wouldn't even let us recycle because "God is in control of what's going to happen." As though separating trash was denying the authority of God (and there we have a direct example of what Becky referred to). I do wonder if this is a forerunner for the end times though. It's bound to happen at some point (whether you believe it's going on now, or will happen), a global socialism would certainly seem to point to that. What I feel is that we have to be wise, don't give in to fear, don't forget that we must act (Christianity is not the faith of the seditary), and don't forget that God is in control (and that's a good thing!).

I definitely think we should give thought to decreasing pollution (and I'm not talking necessarily about green house gasses, I'm talking about the stuff that makes asthmatics have to say inside some days), decreasing the use of fossil fuels, increasing the drinkable water on the planet (big one there), decreasing extravagance and waste (and I think that means that we reuse and recycle and try to buy wisely), and that we consider what can further be done to stop deforestation (except where the forests are 'farmed' forests obviously) and animal extinction.

Does this mean we give over our rights to a global legislation or pay massive taxes? I don't think so. If the Earth is warming and it's bad and it's directly a result of the industrial revolution, does that mean that we should keep on doing what we have been doing because "God's in control?" No. Does that mean that God is neither Good nor in control? No.

God put his laws in the hearts of all men and He created us all. Obviously we disagree with the extremist environmentalism, just like we disagree with doomsdayers in general, but I think that we ought to consider if there's even a little bit of wisdom to be taken from them. It might be in our backlash against them we miss something and no only fail as stewards but fail to be at peace with everyone as much as we are able.

[22. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:01 AM on Jan 17:]

22

Jacob #6 - didn't you get the memo? All the cool conservatives are getting on board. "Socialism" is the new "conservatism". I think you ought to just get on board, buddy. Resistance is (likely) futile.

[23. Jacob said the following at 7:58 AM on Jan 17:]

23

Carrie (#22),

I see. Then I shall prepare to be assimilated. Then I shall not question the Borg, but only mindlessly love, embrace and accept everything the Collective tells me.

Thanks for passing along the memo. I'll enjoy these last few days of questioning cultural authority and people with flagrant agendas and biases before they come for me.

[24. JB said the following at 8:44 AM on Jan 17:]

24

I think the article is absolutely correct that we should think critically about global warming and, really, all science and policy issues. I would argue, though, that the reason you received the email response you did has less to do with the individual's unwillingness to engage in critical thinking and more to do with the politicization of the global warming issue.

If there is genuine scientific controversy about the facts of global warming and if people are genuinely engaging in an examination of their positions, you would expect to see people both for and against global warming distributed more or less evenly across ideological and religious lines. Clearly that isn't the case. The more conservative a person is, the less likely they are to believe in global warming, and vice versa. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a politician's voting record on abortion and same sex marriage predicted their position on global warming.

Combined with this problem is the fact that climate science is extremely complicated and impossible for even well-meaning non-experts to critically assess. I'm a fairly well-educated guy who is interested in science, but I have no idea how one tells if satellite temperature measurements are accurate, how to construct and test a climate predicting computer model, or how to estimate the relative effects of atmospheric CO2 and sun intensity. This inability to make use of raw data about global warming effectively forces us to rely on the opinions of experts in the field.

If our politics guide us to a conclusion about global warming and we simply choose to listen to those authorities whose opinions agree with ours, we haven't engaged in critical thinking about global warming at all. We've simply substituted some received reasons to justify a conclusion we had decided on before we began to examine the issue. The email writer, I imagine, believes that this sort of thing is behind the article in question.

But I am interested in how we ought to reasonably approach this issue. Are we better able to assess impartial data on global warming and come to conclusions about it than I think? Or is there some totally impartial source we can consult? My current position is that we are best off acknowledging that while there is some debate, the preponderance of climate scientists believe that global warming is real, caused by humans, and bad for us, and going with that. Any better ideas?

[25. farmer Tom said the following at 8:53 AM on Jan 17:]

25

22. Carrie (the original) said,

Jacob #6 - didn't you get the memo? All the cool conservatives are getting on board. "Socialism" is the new "conservatism". I think you ought to just get on board, buddy. Resistance is (likely) futile.

Another reason I don't call myself a conservative. What was liberal ten years ago is conservative now.

Me I'm going to stick to the originals.

I'm a fundamentalist, Scripture is my final authority for faith and practice.

And in the secular world, I'm a Constitutionalist.

No moving target which changes with each new political face or with time.

[26. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:20 AM on Jan 17:]

26

What bothers me about the pro-warming side is not so much that they claim it (and do have some valid claims worth investigating), but like evolutionists, essentially say to the rest of us, "We're right (because we're scientists with PhD's), and you're wrong. If you disagree with us, you are either an uneducated God-nut or an Industrial Mongul bent on destroying the Earth".

Over the years of learning science and asking hard questions (e.g. Was the Flood in Noah's Ark worldwide or regional? Were Adam and Eve actual individuals or a metaphor?) one thing that I've noticed is that the truth tends to get accepted without question if it's repeated often enough (think "Four legs good, two legs bad").

For example, most people accept that evolution is a "fact", yet if you ask the average person to explain why (bringing up classic objections) chances are he/she won't be able to do so. Same goes for global warming. Most will say that it is real and occuring, and that it's caused by CO2 emissions. But if you ask them to explain why that theory is plausible and others are not chances are they will just defer to something to the effect of, "Everyone knows it's true" (or maybe "Al Gore said it was and that was a pretty convincing movie").

Remember during the 70's when the "scientists" said we'd run out of oil in 20-ish years? Or that thing called Y2K which was supposedly to be at best a big inconvenience and at worst the next apocolypse? Or those medical claims that get revised every several years from things regarding the benefits/malignancy of everything from coffee to television. I'm not saying that all of scientists' claims are incorrect or unwarranted, but too often you hear of sensationalism in the news but rarely, if ever, hear a retraction.

Here's a little document listed on the government's EPA site which debunks the "consensus" myth. Of course the pro-warming camp may tell you things like, "They aren't real scientists" or "they are just paid by the oil industry lobby" (like the pro-warming camp entirely has its hands clean). I say simply just read for yourself and decide how it fits into the discussion, rather than just dismiss it.

For the record, I tend to accept the global warming theory, but remain highly skeptical, especially of how much influence mankind is having on the climate. The problem of course is a catch 22. By the time we'll know for sure, if we did nothing, and the claims are true, we could be in for a very uncomfortable existence. But if we do something, and find out the theory was as right as the impossibiity of heavier-than-air flight, it would have been a worldwide waste of resources.

I just don't appreciate that like evolution, global warming is a "fact" to which no intelligent discussion is allowed.

[27. Stephanie Jenkinson said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 17:]

27

Jay's article was excellent. I find it very ironic that the "weathermen" (or women) aren't really very accurate over the longterm (and sometimes over the short term!) and yet we are trusting the higher up metereologists to tell us what will happen in 50 years. I think they do a better job telling what has happened (and past trends) as opposed to predicting future weather.

I know that here in Canada, along the "south border", things are more like I remember it being when I grew up in northern Ontario (10 hours north of here). Currently we're in the middle of -30 weather. The last few winters have been brutal! There's definitely been a change, but it isn't a warming trend, at all.

[28. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:05 AM on Jan 17:]

28

Welcome to the dark side, Jacob.
Do, indeed, prepare to be assimilated.

[29. Melissa S. said the following at 11:34 AM on Jan 17:]

29

TINA #19- Not all passions are created equal. And what if the passion is misplaced. It doesn't make any sense to passionately stand for what is wrong!

I'm not saying necessarily that Al Gore is wrong or right...that's not my point. (Although if we say he's wrong for argument's sake, what we have is someone who fell for "anything" wrong and used a lot of passion doing so. Great. No protection there.)

What I'm saying is that just because Al Gore has a passion for what he believes in doesn't make it any more admirable if he's wrong about what he believes in.

And equating Jesus' passion to save sinners is hardly the same as having a passion to promote global warming ideology. Just because Jesus had passion does not vindicate all other passions. The only conclusion I can draw from your analogy is that just as Jesus is mankind's savior and our souls are doomed without Him, so is Al Gore mankind's savior and our planet and bodies would be doomed without Al Gore.

In and of itself, it's not wrong that Al Gore is an "activist", but good intentions do not validate all actions, even if you believe in them.

[30. Renee said the following at 11:44 AM on Jan 17:]

30

My South East history teacher last year told us that between 930 - 1150 AD, the population around the world rose, because the temperature rose, allowing more food to grow. So... why are we so worried about a warmer earth?

[31. JB said the following at 11:47 AM on Jan 17:]

31

Mike Theemling,

If the authorities quoted in the Senate minority report you linked to (it was not a statement by the EPA) really weren't climate scientists or if they were paid by oil companies, would that affect your reading of that evidence?

[32. Ultraviolet said the following at 2:03 PM on Jan 17:]

32

SMC #15 and Stephanie Jenkinson #27 -

I know that maybe it seems colder today, or this winter, but it really doesn't make sense to make commentaries about climate change due to a very select data point. On a geological timescale, the first few weeks of January mean *nothing*. And I hear this argument a LOT, so this is to anyone else who is inclined to make this argument as well.

[33. TINA said the following at 5:06 PM on Jan 17:]

33

Melissa#29 I think you misunderstood.......I was not comparing Al Gore to Jesus that would be absurd my point was Al has a passion that is his driving force good or bad as some would say he is dedicated to his mission which is a good example of how we are to be for Christ....I do tend to think people judge what he does because of his political party choice and a lot of debatable things they stand for..however what he stands for harms no one so that's not a horrible thing and as far as protection?clarify?wondering if you mean Gods?because if by chance you do how would you know the answer to that?let me guess its biblical not to want to make the GOD given land better for all of mankind? don't think so as a matter of fact just the opposite...I do want to thank you for "activist"..:).....

[34. Kelly said the following at 6:13 PM on Jan 17:]

34

My dad and I are both scientists (with degrees). He actively works in the field of studying the environment.

(In other words, we're more qualified than the average person screaming hysteria over global warming.)

And we don't believe that Global Warming is caused by humans, OR a reason to panic. I suspect there are many, many scientists who also have this point of view but it's not popular in the media.

[35. Dash RIPROCK III said the following at 6:56 PM on Jan 17:]

35

Al Gore must be held accountable for the wild hysteria he's created over global warming. Here is what you can do to help. Al Gore has recently stated that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in five years. We can't let this crazy prediction go unnoticed and we cannot allow his prediction to be forgotten. I've had liberals accuse me of fabricating this story, but it is very true and Al Gore was nice enough to make his predictin on camera. Here is the link to the vid:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com Once there, click on the pic of Big Al holding up five fingers.

When the five years have passed, we should all demand that Big Al go away and stop spreading this nonsense. Thank you for giving me a chance to post this on your site.

[36. Lukas said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 17:]

36

Was anyone else struck by the figures of 200,000 Europeans dying of heat every year, and 1.5 million dying of cold? Those sound to me like they're off by a few orders of magnitude.

[37. Amelia said the following at 12:33 AM on Jan 18:]

37

First, I'm so pleasantly surprised that this comment thread has been so civil on both sides. You guys are awesome! If it's just the result of effective moderators, then you guys rock.

Second, I want to address the precautionary principle, that in the absence of conclusive or near-conclusive evidence (such as the global warming debate), humanity needs to prevent the possible danger. The problem with the precautionary principle and global warming is the widespread assumption that preventing danger = stopping global warming. As has been so shrewdly raised, is global warming likely to have more negative or more positive effects?

I notice that advocates of taking action to do all we can to prevent possible global warming do not typically mention the costs of doing so. If it took no coercion and no resources that could be used elsewhere for proven needs, I would not object, nor I expect would most people. However, proposed actions to control greenhouse gas emissions require both coercion and massive redirection of resources. How about somebody doing a true cost-benefit analysis? What if we should apply the precautionary principle to the dangers of alarmist big-government actions?

Third, it is good to point out, as several have correctly done, that a few weeks of chill weather does not at all mean global warming is ruled out. However, what kind of evidence could rule out global warming? So often when any weather pattern occurs, I hear it attributed to global warming, be it drought, flood, heat, cold, tornadoes, hurricanes, or even fairly normal weather patterns. I suspect that if global cooling was in vogue, the same events would be somehow attributed to the "oncoming ice age."

Finally, I notice some people's assumptions about pollution problems and running out of natural resources. The U.S. and U.N. data on air and water pollution show that each year, our air and water are getting cleaner. Think of medieval conditions - those streets and water were not clean and disease ran rampant. Some areas - China is a good example - have increasing pollution levels, but historically, rising pollution from industrialization is followed by lowering pollution later, leaving behind better quality of life for everybody. There are far more trees in the U.S. than there were 100 years ago. Name me one natural resource that is going to run out. Time and time again in the past century, it was predicted that there were only ten years of copper supply, twenty years of oil, etc. The reserves that are economically viable to extract keep growing, and if supplies should fall and prices rise, then even more will be viable to extract.

It's counter-intuitive, but take a good look into the economics - natural resources appear to be inexhaustible. The principles are tricky, but I'll try to explain a tiny bit here. That does not mean we should get complacent or irresponsible, but as technological innovation continues to grow at a faster and faster pace, the observed pattern is that we will become better at utilizing resources, finding more, using it efficiently, finding substitutes and alternatives, and all the rest. Even fossil fuels do not appear to be running out (plus, if all the evidence is wrong and they ever did, alternative sources of energy keep looking better and better).

In other words, scientific evidence does not say you need be pessimistic. God did not make a substandard Creation, the world is a wonderful place, and it may be that we cannot change that. Book recommendation: Dr. Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource.

[38. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:05 AM on Jan 18:]

38

JB,

My apologies, the website was not on the EPA site (misread "epw" too quickly). I should not have implied such. I'll fess up to that immediately.

However, regarding what you said the latter part, it seems to confirm what I said in my original post. The moment that there is a dissent of opinion against global warming the first reaction from that pro-warming community tends to be, "well they aren't real climate scientists" or "they must've been paid by oil companies". This surprises me as your earlier posting implies that like myself, you want to approach the issue critcally.

Without an exhaustive vetting of each and every person on that list, it seems reasonable to say that a good number of them aren't merely puppets of the oil industry. Even if some of them are (and I wouldn't doubt that to be the case), I believe that the pro-warming camp also have their puppets as well. Let's be perfectly honest. There are pushes for "breakthroughs" and "groundbreaking discoveries" often because it is tied with research money. Sometimes big research money. If the 'in' thing right now is global warming, of course there is incentive for those to study it and publish "findings" (similarly another 'in' thing right now is alternative energy). What would happen to all those scientists who get their salaries off of global warming if, hypothetically, global warming was revealed to be a big mistake. As I stated earlier, I don't either side can completely claim bias-free findings.

Something in your earlier post also made me think:

"If there is genuine scientific controversy about the facts of global warming and if people are genuinely engaging in an examination of their positions, you would expect to see people both for and against global warming distributed more or less evenly across ideological and religious lines."

Ideally this would be the case, but it rarely happens. It doesn't happen with global warming, evolution, gun control, or many other issues. Here's why. Because labels are put onto people (environmentalistts, evangelicals, democrats/republicans, etc) and because those groups of people tend to have generalizations associated with them (environmentalists care more about spotted owls than people, evangelicals are too judgemental, etc) any time there is a position which is in coflict with another, we tend to attribute that dissent with their identification rather than the actual reasons. So if someone says they are skeptical of global warming many automatically assume they are either A) a religious fanatic, B) a texas-oil tycoon, C) a Republican or D) some combination of the above. As one or more of those groups, it is assumed that their line of reasoning is tainted and thus not valid. Thus, you won't see an even distribution of those for/against global warming. People's beliefs and convictions tend to bring labels onto them, not the other way around.

[39. LookTheOtherWay said the following at 7:30 AM on Jan 18:]

39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
End of first paragraph: "Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist)."
That would suggest that some warming is to be expected somewhere along the line.

Also, has anyone else heard the planet Venus used as as a dire warning about what could happen to Earth? Basically the argument goes like, "Venus is a planet comparable in size and composition to Earth, it might have been like Earth at some point in the past, it has a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere, and so now it's really hot and uninhabitable."
I've heard this repeated a few times, which is kind of scary because they always omit the fact that Venus is 41 million km closer to the sun.

A bunch of environmentalism makes sense, as has been already stated, recycle, use renewable wood etc, try and get off oil at the very least because of the political problems with the sourcing countries... makes sense.
That there are serious data issues associated with the climate change argument has led me from blindly following to skepticism over the last few years.
I read of a debate on the subject, in a school of all places, the class was split into two and had to argue for and against. The bit I remember most was that the for side quoted a CO2 increase measurement, and the against side pointed out that the sensor was placed at a volcano. Which gives out, among other things, CO2.
I agree with the article. Question everything. Just add "Where was the data obtained from" to the list (like the "how accurate is it" from the satellites in an earlier reply)

[40. Mac said the following at 8:48 AM on Jan 18:]

40

I'm a hardcore rightwing talk radio junkie, and yeah, I think the whole Global Warming scare is stupid.

However,

I can't help but think that Focus on the Family, and Christian organizations like it are hurting their own ministries when they issue official statements about their stance on Global Warming or other political issues that have little to do with that ministry's mission. Abortion or education are more understandable as such issues directly intersect with FOTF's mission, but doesn't an argument for or against global warming instead just tend to isolate those of different opinion, that would otherwise benefit greatly from this ministry? Why not speak where the Bible speaks, but be silent where it is silent?

[41. k. said the following at 11:35 AM on Jan 18:]

41

Every time I see an article on Boundless about global warming, I make a donation to an environmental organization.

[42. Christina said the following at 8:21 PM on Jan 18:]

42

Mike in #26 -

To help with that Noah thing being regional or world wide, I've got some food for thought!

Just interesting trivia, but two other epic/mythological/historical accounts (at the very least) talk about a flood of epic proportions :)

One in the Middle East (Gilgamesh) and another one originating in Peru about a Llama that warns the people of a flood to come. They don't believe him, but he goes to the top of a mountain anyway. The floods came and everyone died. That's the peruvian reason for llamas not talking - no one would believe him anyway!

I know this doesn't seriously help the question any, but it gives some food for thought :)

[43. Simon said the following at 10:20 PM on Jan 18:]

43

Good call Farmer Tom (#25). What passes for mainstream conservatism these days is a morally and intellectually bankrupt adherence to big government, Republican style. Quick to embrace the latest social democratic fads and having completely abandoned concepts like individual rights and Constitutional rule of
law.

Is the earth getting warmer or colder? You can point out evidence supporting both views. But some people are more interested in fads than facts, and mindlessly jump on the global warming bandwagon.

[44. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:09 AM on Jan 19:]

44

Global warm-mongering is much like goo-to-you evolution: their supporters like to claim "the debate is over" and silence dissent rather than debate the issues.

Also, the original article pointed out that advocates of weapons of mass taxation need to answer four questions not just one, including: is warming more harmful than cooling, and are the benefits of halting warming enough to justify the health costs of increased impoverishment.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a Ph.D. Economist, identified some of the biases:

The global warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These rent-seekers profit

- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;

- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;

- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);

- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.

These people represent a strong voice in the global warming debate. They are not interested in CO2, freedom or markets, they are interested in their businesses and their profits — “produced” with the help of politicians.

Klaus also pointed out the huge dangers of alarmism as an excuse to impose increased totalitarian controls on people:

“Global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth-versus-propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the ‘established’ truth, although a lot of people—including top-class scientists—see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

[45. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:28 AM on Jan 19:]

45

Tina (#19) writes:

"what i find funny(in a cute sense) is Leonardo DiCaprio he has certainly taken his convictions to a high level of priority his all go green apartment and everything in it,what he drives,even what he eats..His heart is definitely in it nothing wrong with that either...."

What I find disturbing is the large number of global warm-mongers who fly in private jets, including that hypocrite DiCaprio. John Travolta lectures the masses on the evils of global warming, but owns five jets.

In fact, one of Al Gore's producers, Laurie David, abuses SUV drivers, but takes twice-yearly holidays in private jets, although one flight across the US burns as much fuel as a Hummer driven for a year.

I might take the global warm-mongers more seriously if they acted as if CO2 emissions were a problem.

[46. James said the following at 3:48 AM on Jan 19:]

46

Long time reader of Boundless, first time comment since I find this topic of considerable interest, as some of my graduate work dealt directly with climate modeling.

My concern comes from the perspective having worked with climate models. I don't wish to take the time to explain the details of the math, physics, or programming to anybody; I doubt anybody really wants to learn that, either. If it took me a full semester to learn how to run the specifics of the model; I am certainly not going to teach anybody in one measely response.

But I do want to include one detail. I just wanted to point out a few results that are not borne of any self interest, just the crunching of numbers. Simulations of the atmosphere with pre-1850 carbon levels suggest that the planet should be about 2 degrees cooler than it is right now; simply simulating the atmosphere with recorded carbon levels produces a much more realistic view of what our planet has experienced. I know 2 degrees does not seem like a lot at face value... who notices if the high temperature is 2 degrees different, right? But consider the global scale and convert each degree over each location into energy, and we quickly start talking about billions upon billions of Joules of energy, which does become a number of interest.

Do we know exactly what role human activity plays in this rise? No, as with most things in science, we cannot say with definite certainty - but we can say fairly confidently that the increase of vehicles and industry has played a prominent role in the increased CO2 levels. Furthermore, longer term, established climate cycles suggest we should be in a relatively cool period as well - but we aren't. The atmosphere is too big to ever be definite. But we've got to try to come up with a best estimate.

Other more tangible incidents around the world are indicative of a warming planet as well. Melting glaciers which provide fresh water. Islands disappearing or threatening to disappear due to rising sea levels. Rising sea levels raise the potential of devestation from tropical cyclones and ocean waves (tsunamis, for example) by a considerable amount by bringing the ocean shore closer to much of the world's population, as a great percentage

We can't collapse the global economy in a knee jerk reaction - for a number of obvious reasons - but at the same time, do we sit back and do nothing?

As for concerns about the accuracy of weather and climate forecasts... these are fair concerns but allow me to address this issue as well. I suggest that while forecasts are far from perfect, forecasts allow us to do wonderful things that save thousands of lives every year. We knew that Hurricane Ike would be a threat to the United States a full 14 days in advance, and as the storm grew and grew closer, the forecast narrowed on Houston. Early detection meant early warnings and evacuations; these evacuations made life immensely better for tens of thousands. Do not dismiss the math and science so quickly.

Another concern regards the fate of cold weather climates. Yes, fewer people would die of cold in northern climates. Balance this 'gain' with the strain that would be put on portions of the tropics, much of which is 3rd world. I would also argue that this benefit is not worth it.

I am only one meteorologist who believes God writes in beautiful languages of math and science. There is so much concern in the climatology community about point of views being expressed by those outside of our field because many outside of climatology who speak of global warming have a distinct political and economic interest, and when power and money become involved in an issue, the truth starts to fade away really, really fast. I trust professionals in other fields every day - climatologists, like many others, do not like to be told how to do our jobs by those who spend far less time regarding our issues, and we especially do not like to be demonized as biased and grant seeking because we come to conclusions that some people do not like.

Question global warming... responsibly. Question both sides of the debate.

Christ tells us in Matthew to make disciples of all the earth... I tend to believe this is a temporal command in addition to spacial. Do what we can for those who will come after us. No, we won't live long enough to truly know whether we are right or wrong. I do not find that a reasonable excuse for inaction.

Thank you for your time.

[47. James said the following at 4:53 AM on Jan 19:]

47

I’ll try to answer the points in order, 1 to 4, in the most objective manner that I can. We cannot sort this problem with hysterics, from either side.

The physical evidence for the prevalence of an enhanced greenhouse effect is possibly best seen in the contraction of the polar ice sheets and the retreat of glaciers that is now occurring at any accelerated rate, far faster than initial predictions. Couple this to the measures of temperature that have all shown an increase, I would suggest that this should be conclusive proof of a recent increase in global temperatures.

As for two, I do believe that our emissions are contributing to the increase in global temperature.

Is this bad overall? Well (and I haven’t read the other posts to check if these points have been made) let me share a scenario of what is likely to happen if temperatures keep climbing at their current rate. Firstly, the effect of the melting polar ice. With the disappearance of their habitats, many species that depend on the polar ice sheets (Polar bears, certain seal species) will either become extinct or will be driven into conflict with humans in a desperate search for food (think of the black bear behavior in Yellowstone National Park). So, there will be an accelerated loss of species.

Increasing sea levels will begin to submerge previously viable land mass, such as the Caiman Islands (where people are already losing their homes) and other countries that exist below sea level (the Netherlands for example). The influx of water will also negate the Gulf Stream, the warm water current that provides for the temperate climate of Britain and parts of Western Europe. This lead to more extremes of temperature (like most land docked countries), destroying much of the arable land within these countries and decreasing food production. This could lead to a mini Ice age in Northern Europe, and considering our ageing population and already over burdened health care system, this would be very, very bad.

As temperatures continue to rise, the increasing sea temperatures pose another massive problem. The greenhouse enhancing effect of CO2 are nothing compared to that of methane. What most people don’t realize is that there is a phenomenal amount of methane stored on our ocean floors. At the moment it is stable, but if sea temperature were to rise continually, there is a chance that this could be released. This is the Clathrate gun hypothesis, and it has happened before in previous mass extinctions. If this happened, the temperature increase could top 10oC and the result would be catastrophic to say the least. In general, when the Earth is put under extremes (temperature, atmospheric shock etc) it reacts sharply to correct its balance. The planet will always survive; we just might not be here to see it.

Finally, no, there is nothing we can do. The process has gone too far and the only way to undo the damage would either be to introduce mass amounts of S02 into the atmosphere to cool it or stop all car/plane etc usage now. That’s not going to happen, because we value our economies and our comfort more than our inheritance. We were supposed to take care of the garden, but we’ve turned it into a landfill site.

[48. Jeremy said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 19:]

48

Farmer Tom (#25):
"And in the secular world, I'm a Constitutionalist.

No moving target which changes with each new political face or with time."

That is an interesting position, one I have not seen seriously defended. You oppose a "moving target", meaning, I assume that you would support the original Constitution? Without the "moving" of amendments? Slavary should be legal, slaves should count as 3/5 of a person? Women should not be allowed to vote?

It seems like putting such blind faith in a single human construction is no less foolish than having blind faith in a particular political party.

[49. Ted Slater said the following at 10:48 AM on Jan 19:]

49

Lukas (#36) -- it does sound inaccurate, but it is supported by the evidence. Here's the relevant excerpt from the book identified in the footnote:

The heat wave in Europe in early August 2003 was a catastrophe of heartbreaking proportions. With more than 3,500 dead in Paris alone, France suffered nearly 15,000 fatalities from the heat wave. Another 7,000 died in Germany, 8,000 in Spain and Italy, and 2,000 in the United Kingdom.

While 35,000 dead is a terrifyingly large number, all deaths should in principle be treated with equal concern. Yet this is not happening. When 2,000 people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998-2000 saw about 47,000 cold deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks.

For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.

[50. kaarina said the following at 11:15 AM on Jan 19:]

50

I think the real interest we ought to be having in "saving the planet" is how eco-unfriendliness hurts other human beings. Some 3rd world countries sell rent space as landfills for 1st world countries as a source of income. Wasteful forms of agriculture are turning formerly verdant land into desert, and the misuse of the world's water supply is shrinking fresh water in the world. The pesticides used in the textile industry are endangering the lives of the workers who grow the cotton used for our blue jeans. Strip mining leaches heavy metals into the groundwater supply that makes miners and their communities extremely sick. Misuse of the woodland in the Amazon is depriving farmers of their livelihoods as the rich soil disappears with the trees. Abuse of the earth -- particularly for financial gain -- is directly related to the abuse of fellow man.

Having compassion for our neighbors -- and for the "strangers" we don't see -- is tied to a more "eco-friendly" world. Whether or not global warming is real we have to take responsibility for the way our actions as consumers impact our fellow human beings. This is far more important than reducing carbon emissions or eating less red meat.

[51. Ted Slater said the following at 11:43 AM on Jan 19:]

51

Dr. Sarfati (comments #44 and #45) -- good to see you here. I'm looking forward to publishing your series on Creation during the weeks leading up to "Darwin Day," Feb. 12. Your first one will appear this Friday on Boundless.

[52. farmer Tom said the following at 12:01 PM on Jan 19:]

52

40. Mac,

With out quoting everything you said,

Can I ask you a sincere question?

On what matters of truth are we Biblically allowed to remain silent?

It would create far less controversy is F on the F would take a position that all religions are equal, that everyone is going to go to heaven when they die.

They might receive more financial contributions if they would proclaim sodomy to be just another lifestyle choice.

And the enviro-communists would be oh so thrilled if F on the F would decide to ignore the communistic agenda behind the attempts to use the power of the state(government) to mandate human behavior with regards to the supposed man-made global warming. Since the Bible clearly teaches the principle of individual soul liberty, that each one is accountable before the Creator God for his/her actions, not only in the spiritual realm but in this physical world as well. Then it is fully within an adherence to Biblical teaching for F on the F to say that mankind on an individual basis is responsible before God for what he/she does with the "environment".

Read Romans 13, the government is to act in a defensive role, only when an actual crime has been committed should the government act. The only time government(the state) has any role in "environmental" issues is to punish evil doers. You pollute a stream, dumping the sewage from your cesspools of humanity,(cities) into the rivers, you should be punished.

[53. DP said the following at 12:09 PM on Jan 19:]

53

Mac #40:

I think you bring up a good point. Why distract people from the main point (Jesus) by taking such a stand against global warming?

Ted would likely say that it's because they 'love truth,' but I would contend that some truths are more important than others, and arguing about 'lesser truths' can be (and is) distracting from the way, THE TRUTH, and the life.

[54. Lukas said the following at 12:58 PM on Jan 19:]

54

Ted (#49)
I googled that article as well, but I still have trouble buying it. If you think about it, an extraordinarily hot and extended heat wave like the one in August of 2003 killed 35,000 people across western Europe. Then, with no other explanation, the article goes on to say that SIX TIMES that many people are dying in Europe EVERY year because of exessive heat. I just dont see how that is possible.

I also read the BBC article linked to the Discover Magazine article you quoted, and while it did mention Great Britain having the highest number of preventable cold-weather deaths in western Europe, it cited no numbers, certainly not 25,000 to 47,000 a year quoted in the Discover Magazine article. While I believe they make a valid point, I get the sense that the numbers are vastly exaggerated.

[55. Leah said the following at 4:42 PM on Jan 19:]

55

Alison (3) - actually, no, global warming means just that- warming. Scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming point out that since there have been discoveries of much of the planet cooling, global-warming-scientists have started changing their terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". Your average layman simply thinks "climate change" = "global warming" because it hasn't been explained to him that the scientists actually got it wrong when they claimed the earth was warming. Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado says “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’”

James (46) said Simulations of the atmosphere with pre-1850 carbon levels suggest that the planet should be about 2 degrees cooler than it is right now. The problem with climate simulators is that there is so much assumption programmed into them (and this is the cause of much faulty climate prediction). The particular simulator James is referring to takes into account pre-1850 carbon levels. It doesn't take into account the pattern of temperature or carbon levels that has been fluctuating for the past 3000 years.

I also do not believe anyone is advocating "sit(ting) back and do(ing) nothing". They're simply saying that humans are most probably NOT as responsible for "climate change" as the politicians tell us. Other planets are undergoing climate change, even the sun is, it is only logical that Earth would too. Not to mention, according to Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” And according to Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, "It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."

And then, according to prominent Hungarian physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni, “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan says “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

I think it's quite obvious our planet used to be a lot warmer than it currently is. Fossils of tropical plants have been found in Canada and on islands near Antarctica. Clearly, the amount of ice in those areas has not always been there. Why is it not logical that the earth might return to that scenario? And then I'm sure there'll be another ice age at some stage and the cycle will go around again.

I think the environmental problems we can have more impact on are deforestation and water pollution. These are things obviously caused by humans and causing more problems (both for the environment and other humans) than 'global warming'.

[56. JB said the following at 5:05 PM on Jan 19:]

56

Mike Theemling,

The reason I think it's important to look at the qualifications and financial interests of authorities cited in the global warming debate stems from what I said in my earlier post. As the vast majority of us are not able to assess the arguments for and against climate change ourselves, we rely on specialists to interpret the arguments for us. Thus, the selection of authorities in which to place our trust is absolutely key to the position we end up taking.

I'm certain, as you say, that there are people on both sides who exaggerate the evidence in order to further their own interests. So, clearly, we should be very careful who we trust. I think it is fair game to ask if the authority cited is well-qualified to offer an opinion on climate change or if they have financial backing from an organization with a vested interest in the results of their research. While acknowledging that academics have an interest in making their area of research exciting, I would argue that scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals ultimately have the greatest credibility in this debate because they are subject to public analysis of their reasoning by other scientists.

So what do you think? Shall we take our decision about global warming from the preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature? Or do you have another proposal?

[57. TINA said the following at 5:24 PM on Jan 19:]

57

#55 Leah-Thank you :) I by far am not educated on this subject in the secular sense at all...seen a few things read them talked about them.your post gave me greater insight it was interesting.made a lot of sense...things i was not aware of......gave me a different perspective...

[58. Melissa S. said the following at 5:27 PM on Jan 19:]

58

Tina-

Again, passion is not an emotion in a vacuum. If you have a passion for something true-- good. If you have a passion for something false-- and then tirelessly peddle it to millions of people...how can that be good?

If Al Gore is correct, wonderful. If he's not, how can he NOT be doing damage?? What is your statement that "what he stands for harms no one" based on? There is absolutely no merit in just standing firm for something. The merit is in standing firm for what is TRUE. Whether Al Gore is wrong or right is not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the assertion that simply standing firm for "______" (insert anything) is a virtue.

And I'm lost about the "protection" part of your comment. Not really sure what you're referring to there. You're welcome for the quotes around activist. :)

[59. James said the following at 5:31 PM on Jan 19:]

59

Leah(55)... I believe very, very strongly that 1998 is not a scientifically valid starting point for any long term temperature analysis. one particular weather event was very strong that season, resulting in anomolous warm temperatures even by the current warming trendlines, and in turn significant weather events worldwide. It was a spike in an upward trendline... a one year anomaly that was very extreme... and after that, temperatures did not build on 1998. But that does not mean we haven't seen some of the warmest years in recorded history in the past 10 years. It just means that 1998 was so extreme that we haven't topped it. That does not change the global warming argument. Saying that 2007 was the coldest year in the decade doesn't say a whole lot... we had 10 extremely warm years following 20 warm years.

You can talk about assumptions in climate models... that is fair. But the reality is that weather simulations do an excellent job, and that while climate models indeed are on a longer time scale... they take the EXACT same math, physics, and chemistry as other numerical models, not only used in meteorology but in many engineering practices. Should we take these simulations with some caution? Of course. That is a great challenge in atmospheric sciences... there are no absolutes, there are no definitives... but that does not mean we stop trying and stop doing what we can.

I do appreciate the counter arguments presented. There is a considerable amount of debate on some of those topics. I respectfully disagree with the findings of the Australian professor because cloud cover, while decreasing incoming solar radiation, would also decrease the amount of radiation that is aloud to leave at nights... which due to the properties of the H2O molecule would act as its own 'greenhouse gas'. I also find it interesting that the Hungarian scientist quoted contradicts the Australian researcher... one suggests more water vapor will be present which will cause cooling, while the other suggests less water vapor will be present... both arguments being ones I do not agree with.

The gentleman from Russia almost makes my case for me... in history, yes, global warming has preceded carbon emissions. That is one thing that is concerning in this discussion, that the carbon particulate rates are preceding the rise in global temperatures. As such, past climatic warming events are not always exact replicas of what is happening now.

I also disagree with the idea (very, very strongly) that climatologists have changed global warming to climate change as part of some idea that we are trying to get around being wrong. That's just not true and I would consider that line of attack to be a little bit insulting and unfair. Global warming simply refers to rising planet temperatures. Few dispute the idea that the planet has warmed both in the last 100 years and more rapidly in the last 30. Climate change refers to a variety of impacts that come with changes in long term weather patterns. There is no malice in talking about different terms; it is merely using different terminology to discuss differing ideas.

Yes... our planet did use to be a lot warmer. So, yes, natural causes do warm our planet. The problem with that is two-fold: that still doesn't explain why industry wouldn't now be contributing to rising CO2 rates, and also that now we have billions of people living in places that would be under water if such a climate were recreated.

I think we are on the same page at the end of the day... pollutions are something I think we are all interested in, they create a cleaner, more breathable environment, and cleaner air operations would decrease carbon emissions and ease long term human influences on climate changes.

[60. Keith said the following at 9:24 PM on Jan 19:]

60

No one can be absolutely certain that global warming is real, but in science we can't be absolutely certain of anything.

All we can do is examine the evidence, build theories, test those theories, and confirm or dismiss those theories on what we measure. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the theory that global warming is real and is being caused by human beings. That isn't to say there isn't room for debate; there is room for debate about all scientific theories. But policy needs to molded after the best available scientific evidence known at the time, and the best evidence available right now states that global warming is a grave danger that threatens to kill hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Recognizing that global warming, caused primarily by human being, will kill countless people around the world is part of being pro-life. Being pro-life isn't just about opposing abortion and euthanasia; it is about opposing anything that causes the death of innocent human beings around the global, including human induced global warming.

As for the "taxes" and "liberty" points, I want to point out that taxes linked to climate change actually increase your "liberty" to pay higher or lower taxes. It is simple: Choose activies that don't (or minimally) increase global warning, and you get to pay lower taxes. Choose activities that contribute to global warming and pay higher taxes. Before carbon taxes, people didn't have that liberty. Now carbon taxes are being imposed (at least where I live), one's "liberty" has increased, and people are free to choose if they want to pay higher or lower taxes - I like that.

[61. Kelly said the following at 5:39 AM on Jan 20:]

61

Again, I realise I don't think like the average person.

Yes, pollution is bad.

But running out of fossil fuels? A good thing, we will be FORCED to find replacements.

Sure, it's sad that people have to move if their land ends up underwater. But you know, that's happened throughout history. Islands form and islands sink, volcanoes birth new mountains, or wipe out a civilisation.

We can't control that. Why should we try to? God made us a CHANGING planet.

And if that means a few species die off, well, yes that's sad as well, but throughout history, thousands of species have become extinct. (Dinosaurs, anyone?)

Because when it comes down to it, does it REALLY matter?

[62. TINA said the following at 1:05 PM on Jan 20:]

62

#59 James-----Ohhh boy.....I am naive in this subject..you AND Leah both have excellent points..I'm a little twisted sister on this one because i agree with both..HELP...:}

[63. JB said the following at 3:37 PM on Jan 20:]

63

Hey, look, evidence.

97% of climatologists believe that the Earth is warming and that humans play a significant role. I'm going to defer to the better judgment of 97% of the experts.

[64. Jethro said the following at 4:20 PM on Jan 20:]

64

Oh JB (#63), you fool, why on earth would you side with the vast majority of the scientific community. That would be so... 'unBoundless'

For the record, yes I also agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Sorry Dr Sarfati, your scienticians don't convince me.

[65. Ted Slater said the following at 4:55 PM on Jan 20:]

65

JB (#63) -- I find that study suspect. The data came from people who "were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments." It doesn't say that it was a random sample; the individuals who received questionnaires could very well have been hand-selected. We cannot assume that there was no bias in this study.

Also, note that that 97% number is from "climatologists who are active in climate research" -- of course those who receive $$$ to research this subject are going to promote AGW as a real and dangerous thing ... that needs to be studied.

A study released a year ago reported that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." Maybe instead of just citing a study that reinforces one view or another, we should do the hard work of examining the evidence, looking for inconsistencies or holes in popular theories, questioning what people's motives are for espousing a particular view.

If you're content with your answer to questions #1 and #2, have you considered wrestling with the other two questions?

Keith (#60) -- you wrote, "Now carbon taxes are being imposed (at least where I live), one's 'liberty' has increased, and people are free to choose if they want to pay higher or lower taxes." That doesn't make any sense. "Liberty" means "freedom" -- freedom to do something, to acquire something. If a carbon tax has made purchasing something more prohibitive, then it's the OPPOSITE of freedom; it's restricting. "Liberty = restriction"? Maybe in some Orwellian world. Not in mine.

[66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:00 PM on Jan 20:]

66

Jeremy (#48) brings up the usual furphy by leftists about "slaves should count as 3/5 of a person". This was actually a way to weaken the power of the slave states. If they were countes as a full person, the slave states would use those numbers to strengthen their power, yet these slaves themselves had no voting power. This would mean that their very numbers would make it impossible to overthrow the system.

Leftists talk about a “living and breathing” Constitution that “evolves”—but always towards the liberal left, it seems. But if the Constitution is evolving, there may as well be no Constitution at all! For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed, or changed properly by amendments. In reality, instead of the rule of law, we have the rule of judges. One must also wonder how elected officials, including Obamov, can logically swear allegiance to a Constitution if its meaning keeps changing at the whim of judges?

I would also suggest that this loss of the rule of objective written law is largely responsible for the high rate of litigation (and threats of litigation, and a chessmaster like me knows that a threat is stronger than its execution). While a defendant can read the wording of the law and even study precedents, he can’t read the minds of the judges, so can’t be sure that a case won’t go against him. So he may pay the extortion money to avoid going to court. And alas he passes on the costs to his customers, so we are all harmed by the litigious society.

Just to show how silly this ‘living document’ nonsense is, think of chess again. I now have a sure-fire plan to become World Champion—find an arbiter who decided that under ‘evolving standards’, he could decide that the Laws of Chess comprise a ‘living document’ that allowed me to play two moves in a row at a moment of my choosing while my opponent is denied that righ.

[67. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:53 AM on Jan 21:]

67

Question about CO2 emissions and controlling them.

From what I understand, cows generate the most CO2, right? An animal that any environment would want to protect...right?

I apologize for my limited biology knowledge...I love biology (especially plant biology) but I'm really horrible at it. Though in my defense, it was because I attempted to understand rather than simply memorize =p

Trees, plants, greenery - they take CO2 and live off it...they're waste product is Oxygen. Which is what WE need to survive (and any other animal) which we use and produce CO2. Its a balance.

Two ideas -
1) If we are so worried about CO2 emissions, why not plant more broad-leaf plants? Not pine, as pine needles have less surface area to absorb CO2. Plant them in your yard, toss apple seeds out the window in a Michigan field...

2) Ted (i think) mentioned earlier that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. Is it possible that increased CO2 emissions could've contributed to that? After-all, the "greenhouse effect" gets its name from the most effective way of mass producing plant-life - in a greenhouse. Though I'd think that in a glass encasement filled primarily with plants that the main atmospheric element would be Oxygen...however, greenhouses primarily use manure for plant fertilizer because of its CO2 emissions. Plants need it.

Just some thoughts.

Now I'm going to apply my warped understanding of biology to Lukas' questions.

Our bodies natural temperature is 96.7 degrees. That is normal for us. In florida, a massive heat wave is 120 degrees. In Europe, I can't imagine it getting much hotter than that. That's less than a 30 deviation from our normal temperature. To keep our homes comfortable and provide enough cooling to prevent hyperthermia (excess body temperature that leads to heat strokes), we would only need to pay to bring the temperature down 30 degrees. Yes, 96.7 is a bit on the warm side, but if you are smart, drink lots of water, and avoid activity that raises your body temp, its survivable.

Now, extreme cold, on the other hand...people laugh when I mention that it gets to 30 degrees in Florida in the winter. Yes, compare that with -30. In Canada. I'd think that Europe would be around there...-40 to -50, probably. What's the difference from the normal body temperature? 130-140 degrees? That's a lot. And just think...I can survive in 30 degree weather no problem. I don't need Heat in the winter around here and outside I guess is kinda survivable... maybe not. People still die from hypothermia in 30 degree weather. Imagine the cost it would take to raise your home's temperature from -50 to 40 or 50 degrees. That's a LOT of money. I spend $150/month in AC for my apartment in the summer. Friends in Canada pay $400/month for heat in the winter. That's a lot of money. There are people who wouldn't be able to afford that. More people who can't afford the heat it takes to survive than can't afford the cooling it takes to survive.

Also take into effect the fact that to keep your body temp up, you need to be physically active. To keep it cool, you relax. Its easier to relax 24-7 than it is to remain physically active 24-7. You have to sleep at some time. And if your body is reaching hypothermic levels, sleep is irresistable...and fatal.

So, those numbers really aren't that ridiculous with regards to proportion.

[68. James said the following at 2:10 PM on Jan 21:]

68

Ted(65)... I find the questioning of scientific motives to be very vague at best. Do you have evidence to support your suggestion that practicing climatologists merely pursue what will give them research money? Because I have 3 years in a university climate lab that suggests that research money will always be around for a variety of projects that are useful, especially in agriculture... so there really isn't a need to pursue any one agenda for financial sake. Research and study grants were pursued for the sake of interest and truth in my lab... not to fit a political agenda. The NIV Bible mentions the word truth over 200 times... I guess I have found a lot of joy and reward in working with people who place so much value in the same virtue, the pursuit of truth. Practicing climatologists are a long way from other scientists, even meteorologists... and there are reasons that strong consensus exists in the community. Not for any conspiracy, but because math and physics tell us many of the same things. Published scientists is a long way from practicing climatologists... and shouldn't that matter? One wouldn't go to a brain surgeon for flu symptoms, would they? Both are doctors, but every scientist has their specialty. If we are going to talk about climate patterns, why not have studies that talk to only scientists studying the climate?

If we are going to question motives, why not question the motives of that Daily Tech link? One quick glance at every article on that page makes it very, very clear which side of the discussion that particular blog is on. Even with that in mind, though, I would like to see a detailed review of those 528 papers. And the author of the blog makes a fairly substantial mistake, which is assuming that global warming and climate change are the same thing. As mentioned previously, this isn't true... climate change articles can refer to any number of effects, and they can also refer to local climate effects... for example, if a part of the planet is getting cooler, then the scientists in that region are going to want to study what regional cooling will do to that area. Not every portion of the planet is warming at the same rate, and thus effects will differ from place to place. But none of those regional patterns change the global argument. Likewise, it would be just as irresponsible to suggest that the entire planet is warming at the rate that Alaska is warming. But there are very few that try to make that argument.

A more accurate study would search articles based on global temperature trends, and to see how many fit into each category: explicit man-made warming, implicit man made warming, explicit natural warming, implicit natural warming, and an even blend. Heck, this may have given me an idea for how to spend some free time.

[69. k. said the following at 4:24 PM on Jan 21:]

69

James -- I enjoyed reading your comments. Very thoughtful and well-reasoned!

[70. Jeremy said the following at 4:34 PM on Jan 21:]

70

Jonathan Sarfati (#66):

"But if the Constitution is evolving, there may as well be no Constitution at all! For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed, or changed properly by amendments."

This illustrates my point perfectly. The Constitution has evolved a number of times, through amendments. If rules have to be fixed to mean anything, then amendments should not be permitted. If it is possible to change a rule, then it is not fixed. You cannot have it both ways.

That tends to be my problem with those that are staunch Constitutionalists and attempt to base their political beliefs on nothing else -- they ignore the (hopefully now obvious) failings of the original document. Putting one's blind trust in a political party is ill-advised, of course*. But putting one's blind trust in a human document is no less so. That is all I was saying.

* Perhaps I shouldn't say "of course", that seems to be a minority viewpoint on this blog...

[71. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:47 PM on Jan 21:]

71

Jeremy: you miss my point. The Founders realized that the Constitution might need changing, so prescribed the proper procedure, i.e. Amendments voted for by a supermajority in Congress.

The problem now is that instead of changing the Constitution in a transparent and accountable way, activist judges merely declare that the constitution means what they say it means. But since we have no idea of the next judicial whim, it makes law and the Constitution meaningless. I.e. meaningless in the sense of genuine law that tells people in advance what they can or cannot do.

I am Australian BTW, so I have blind trust in neither an American political party nor an American document. But for any document to be useful, its meaning must be fixed and knowable in advance. This applies to the Bible, in which I do have complete trust—but not blind trust!

[72. Leah said the following at 8:32 PM on Jan 21:]

72

Samaria (12): "proven science"?? Bahahahahahahaha. AS IF. Tell that to the scientists who USED to be on the UN's IPCC and have now backed out because they've realised what a con it is.

Here is a quote from a Japanese scientist from the IPCC... Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Or how about this one... “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

Then here's another ex-IPCC member... “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Not quite as "proven" as you might think. Somethign tells me you've been ingesting a lot of media-hype rather than scientific research.

James (59) - I don't think any of the scientists quoted are purporting to know what is causing global warming, or if it is, or whatever. The point they are making is that the current "global warming" hype the media banters about is false. There are dozens of other scenarios that may be true. But the current idea isn't. I am sure many of the scientists quoted would disagree on some aspects- some would say global warming is happening (but not due to humans), others would say it's not happening at all, others would say there's nothing we can do about it, still others might suggest we can have a little impact but nothing significant. What they all agree on, though, is that the current media-hyped theories (that global warming is bad and unnatural and completely due to humans) are wrong.

You also said I also disagree with the idea (very, very strongly) that climatologists have changed global warming to climate change as part of some idea that we are trying to get around being wrong. Well, that was a climatologist who came up with that, not me, so maybe you can take it up with him.

You also said I believe very, very strongly that 1998 is not a scientifically valid starting point for any long term temperature analysis. I don't think you could make any predictions based on patterns from a starting point like 1998 either. It's only highlighting part of the pattern, and this is a cooling part. Surely, if 1998 was simply an anomoly, temperatures would have dropped in 1999 but then began increasing again? It sounded to me like this climatologist was making the point that temperatures have not increased since then.

And saying Saying that 2007 was the coldest year in the decade doesn't say a whole lot conveniently misses out the next part, which says 2007 was the coldest year in a millennium.

And really, the fact that the weather is behaving differently to how the IPCC predicted should be enough of a red flag for us to realise that they've got something wrong.

You also said I respectfully disagree with the findings of the Australian professor because cloud cover, while decreasing incoming solar radiation, would also decrease the amount of radiation that is aloud to leave at nights... which due to the properties of the H2O molecule would act as its own 'greenhouse gas'.
You have me confused here, because the Australian guy spoke about carbon dioxide-driven warming, not cloud cover or solar radiation, so I'm missing the link here.

I'd also tend to give some credit to Ted when he said Also, note that that 97% number is from "climatologists who are active in climate research" -- of course those who receive $$$ to research this subject are going to promote AGW as a real and dangerous thing ... that needs to be studied. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who used to work for NASA and has a PhD in meteorology, said “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical (of man-made global warming)." I think this speaks strongly of a scientific community which has been made to shut up by money.

[73. Lukas said the following at 10:11 PM on Jan 21:]

73

Christina (in green)-

First let me apologize in advance for doing a little nit-picking. I am a man who enjoys accuracy, so dont take it personally :)

If I remember correctly, the reason there are more trees now than 100 years ago has less to do with atmospheric CO2 levels and more to due with logging. As mature virgin forests are logged, this opens up the forest floor to much more sunlight and allows more numerous early and mid-sucessional species to abound. Tree farming as an industry has also sprung up in the last 100 years.

Human body temperature averages around 98.6. Florida's record high was 109 degrees, and in 2003, England, Germany, and France set all-time record high temperatures of 101, 104, and 111 respectively. With regard to hyperthermia, there are many issues at play besides absolute temperature difference. Anytime your body cant dump excess heat fast enough, you run the risk of overheating, even if the temperature is below body temperature. So many people died in the summer of 2003 in Europe because they simply lack the air-conditioning infrastructure to deal with it because they rarely need it. They are however more adept at dealing with the cold, because it is cold in western Europe every winter. That being said, I do think the RATIOS of extreme temperature deaths are accurate for the reasons that you stated. I just think the magnitude is very hard to believe. Think about it: the author of this article would have us believe that over 6 TIMES the total number of deaths from the South Asian tsunami of 2004 are occurring EVERY YEAR in one of the most industrialized areas on earth. My best guess is that somewhere along the line the figures had an extra zero or two tacked onto the end, and they were just passed along.

[74. dania said the following at 12:42 AM on Jan 22:]

74

Whether or not the earth is warming, it won't hurt to be energy efficient just to be on the safe side.

[75. TINA said the following at 8:00 AM on Jan 22:]

75

#72 Leah-you amaze me:)......Does anyone wonder if they did this kind of debating during the "Ice" age???

[76. IMO said the following at 8:23 AM on Jan 22:]

76

"Putting one's blind trust in a political party is ill-advised, of course*....

* Perhaps I shouldn't say "of course", that seems to be a minority viewpoint on this blog...
"

Wow that's kind of an offensive statement to make. And after reading many comments and posts, I believe most of us on here are heavy thinkers, not "blindly" trusting anything!

[77. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:51 AM on Jan 22:]

77

Lukas,

No offense. I was simply brainstorming and thought it could add some ideas, cuz I know they are founded in SOMETHING. I don't claim to be an expert in botany and biology...I just have struggled for so long to actually comprehend it. And these are just some of my unscientific observations and understandings of how it might work.

Perhaps the logging industry trees aren't the ones we need? Lol. Like I said, pine needles have less surface area for CO2 absorption. Just seemed to me that more trees could help this "excess" CO2 problem.

As far as the other subject, the magnitude is kinda surprising. Glad we agree on proportions though :)

[78. TINA said the following at 10:46 AM on Jan 22:]

78

OK I have a few simple questions....What if anything can we, should we or should not do? besides prayer...Dr.Sarfati comes with much educational wisdom...Author and co-author of many books.Not to mention grueling years of study...Leah,your research on this subject is amazing....so back to my question?besides pray for the God given land is there any TRUTH to what people like Al Gore are promoting?And if so what can we do about it? I am wondering because i am getting mixed signals on this issue that my brain is trying to understand:P

[79. Brent1776 said the following at 1:36 PM on Jan 22:]

79

Tina:

- Be extremely skeptical of any politicians alarmism. This isn't the first big "crisis" that's been marketed to the public. In fact it is a recognized strategy for rallying public support. See William James' Moral Equivalent of War.

- Follow the money. Al Gore has large investments in carbon credit trading. (Generation Investment Management)

- Keep human nature in mind always. If you think science or any other discipline is not affected by pride, politics, power, money, greed, envy, think again. My uncle is a doctor and his field is rife with self interest and pride. He has experienced first hand the pettiness that runs through humanity in a discipline that you would think would be one of the most altruistic.

-Did I mention, be skeptical?

[80. Kim said the following at 3:07 PM on Jan 22:]

80

I don't have to use fancy words and alot of space to say that - God created everything and will end everything when he chooses. He is in control and I believe and trust in Him. You can call it global warming, climate change or whatever, but His word (the Bible) says that the worlds or mans wisdom is foolishness.
He tells us what is to come.
Mark 13:22-37, Matthew 24:3-51

[81. James said the following at 9:53 PM on Jan 22:]

81

Leah(72)...

I do want to talk about one thing in more detail. We haven't been cooling since 1998. We cooled between 1998 and 1999, and then began (continued, really) to warm again. I am going to try to find an easy analogy that best describes what happened with 1998. Let's say it's May, and the temperatures in the first few days are 50, 54, 58, 60. Then for some reason it's 85 the next day, which for that location is a record. The days following that are 65, 70, 75, 80 or so. The overall trend in that pattern is clearly warming, and while yes you cooled from the record event, (like the earth cooled between 1998 and 1999), there is very little significance in that, as the longer term trend is still upward. Simply put... much like liberals like John Kerry use individual events that are too small in space and time to credit/blame on global warming, 1998 is too small temporarily to attribute to a shift in climate change as well. Start in 1999, and we are warming. Start in 1997, and we are warming. Start at most any year in the 1980-2006 time frame and we warm. (rise in industry in Asia). Start at almost any time frame during the Industrial Revolution... we are warming.

I understand being skeptical of liberal based media blocks and politicians like Al Gore. But that goes for everything that the media and politicians put out. That goes for what Boundless puts out. Why are BL and Focus on the Family putting out statements about global warming that seem remarkably similar to big business, Republican, and FoxNews talking points, for example? This is a big discussion with uncertainty and great consequences. Ask both questions. Ask respectfully.

I just want to share one personal bit to end my contributions. I have done weather forecasting for friends and family since college, which has been a while. A couple of events changed my perspective forever on responsible prognostications. Most notably was Hurricane Katrina near familiar territories in the gulf coast. There is a 'worst case' scenario in every potential weather and climate event, and they are worth exploring/discussing. Statements of dire and doom never seem so bad when the worst case scenario actually happens. I (and many in science) feel it an imperative to give the public the information of what is possible to happen. If the planet DOES warm 3,4,5 degrees, are we going to be ready for it?

I appreciate a civil discussion. Be blessed, everybody.

[82. TINA said the following at 12:51 PM on Jan 23:]

82

#79 Brent 1776-Thank you for helping:]..but now:}did you read what # 81 James wrote? I realize and know what the biblical view and expectations are...them are not my questions or confusions...but..BLAHHHHHH....im still twisted sister on the science level......

[83. TINA said the following at 9:35 AM on Jan 24:]

83

#81 James~After re-reading your post and others..even though i am not educated in this i think you put it best...thank you....:o)also thanks for typing it in a way where people such as myself without the educational back ground can understand it...

[84. Philip said the following at 10:09 PM on Jan 27:]

84

I appreciated the article for setting out questions to think through, though the consideration of the answers seems unhelpfully selective, though some fair points were made.

Regarding the human influence of question 2, I do think the quite possibly unprecedented nature of warming is very suggestive of human influence. I'm not sure what other explanations fit the current situation. It is fair to look at how much do model assumptions matter. I suspect its not much, since scientists do try to model accurately, but its a valid issue to consider.

In reading on the topic I was struck by the wide-ranging possible climate changes being talked about beyond what Jay considered. Considering question 3 responsibly involves much more than moderate temperature increases in temperate parts of the globe, eg. rising sea levels, increased flooding and increased drought.

I do not understand why people are so skeptical of the substantial scientific consensus. (BTW even from Ted's link 45% implicit/explicit endorsement vs 6% rejection.) Sure it is not proven, it has its critics, there are presumably some pressures on scientists to support it, politicians and journalists misreport it, but these things do not justify significant suspicion, let alone confidence that the consensus is wrong.

The analysis of question 4 must include the financial and other costs caused by climate change directly, including costs for defending against its effects. Globally it could well be the poorest nations who suffer. The analysis should also look at the cost/benefit of a full solution, not just initial Kyoto targets.

[85. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:58 PM on Mar 17:]

85

See also Shallow science and its victims by Melanie Phillips, Spectator, 15 March 2009.

The world’s largest-ever gathering of skeptics of global warm-mongering took place in New York City on March 8-10, 2009, to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”

Headliners among the 80 presenters included:

• Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and of the European Union. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he declared, “Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world.”

• American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon—a geologist Ph.D. who has contended he has seen “too many of [my] colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming.”

• William Gray, Colorado State University, who claims global warming alarmists have hijacked the American Meteorological Society.

• Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.

• Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph—thoroughly discredited in scientific circles—supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases.

• Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.

• Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

• Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

• Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, who will present new data showing “the most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.”