The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom

[Pravoslavbob]

Exactly.  I took one look at this SourceWatch site, and the first thought that came to my mind was, "Man, this looks a h***uvalot like Wikipedia!"  They're even set up the same way: content provided and edited by us readers.  We know how credible this format is when you want something really scholarly.  NOT!

Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the authors of  scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda.  

The Sourcewatch site is not the same as Wikipedia.  Go to their homepage if you wish, and read about it.  For one thing, they employ a paid editor.  If you want to find a higher level of "scholarliness" on the internet, I'm sure it can be done.  I thought that this was a quite level-headed summary of the nature and mission of the OISM. 

[Papist]

Stanley,
Satellite photographs are less than 40 years old. I am older than they are! You can't look at data over something like 100 years in a system that is millions of years old and make conclusions based on that. What about the melting sea ice and glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period? What about the expanding sea ice and glaciers during the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?
The Earth, it's oceans and it's atmosphere are a homoeostatic system, and like all homoeostatic systems, it goes through fluctuations while it adjusts itself- just like the balance in the homoeostatic system of your body. Your blood pressure, hydration level, body temperature etc. all go through fluctuations while your body seeks to correct them and keep them in balance. In the case of the Earth, these fluctuations can take hundreds and even thousands of years due to the pace of the systems which correct them (thermohaline circulation, radiative cooling, etc). To conclude that we are all doomed to irreversible global warming based on the melting of glaciers and sea ice over the past 50 years would be like concluding that your normal body temperature is 102^oF because you took your temperature while you had a fever.

Careful. You are starting to sound like a conservative. 

[PeterTheAleut]

Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda. 

I don't even think the issue is whether global warming is happening--I don't even see the OISM article denying that.  The real controversy is whether man is the prime causative agent behind the global warming we so readily observe.

[Pravoslavbob]

And you think the IPCC is NOT political?  Scientists appointed by heads of state to represent their countries on an international panel organized by the United Nations?  Doesn't this give the appearance that these scientists were sent to represent a preformed agenda consistent with the politics of the nations that sent them and with the U.N. agencies that brought them together.  Don't you get the impression that these scientists were chosen because they toed their nations' party lines?  How is that not politics?

Of course politics are involved.  They are involved in every field of human endeavour.  It is true that there are some interesting minority views out there that assert that global warming is not caused by human activity, and these have not always received the attention that they merit.  But nowhere on the planet is the idea that global warming is not happening at all given serious consideration, with the sole exception of the United States. 

[Pravoslavbob]

I don't even think the issue is whether global warming is happening--I don't even see the OISM article denying that.  The real controversy is whether man is the prime causative agent behind the global warming we so readily observe.

The OISM claims that stopping CO2 emissions will damage the environment.  This assertion is simply farcical. 

[PeterTheAleut]

The OISM claims that stopping CO2 emissions will damage the environment.  This assertion is simply farcical. 

Well, even a grade school understanding of biology will show that CO₂ emissions, whether natural or man-made, are necessary for plant life.  But I can agree that stopping man-made CO₂ emissions (outside of our own breathing) will most likely not do our environment any harm.  If anything, the environment will simply revert to its own natural production of CO₂.

[GiC]

Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the authors of  scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda.  

Yes, global warming is happening, but from what I know of paleoclimatology I also know that we are STILL in the middle of an ice age...the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelven warmer than the current average temperature. This fact alone makes the idea that humans are causing global warming very unbelievable...if we look at the natural temperature curves over the last billion years we should be in an era of extreme rapid warming, humans or no humans. I've looked at and studied the current models that suggest we are at fault for golbal warming and as someone extensively trained in computer science and mathematical modeling I can only say that the assumptions and models are severely flawed in their assumptions. Research and publications are judged based on the virtue of their arguments and those arguing for human-influenced climate change simply don't have the science to back them up, or at least they don't have the science as judged from the standards expected from one steeped in the impossibly high standards of theoretical mathematics.

[Pravoslavbob]

^  Well, I know that theoretical mathematics must play a role.  But going back a billion years is just too difficult for us to do with any great accuracy.  Paleoclimatology is a newly emerging science.  We have only recently been able to examine clues to the past of the planet that have up until now been unavailable to us; for example, layers of sediment on the ocean floor.  So of course the models are in one sense flawed in the  that the farther back in time one goes,the more difficult it becomes to determine climatic patterns with accuracy.  But these models are the best that we have right now.  Your implication that noone is considering paleoclimatology seriously seems strange to me.  From what I can see, as I have mentioned above, paleoclimatology is an exciting, newly emerging science that is being pursued with great vigor by many.  I don't see that your conclusion about human intervention not being the cause for recent climate change follows at all.  It seems to me that this is what a clear majority of paleoclimatologists have concluded up until now. 

Do you think that mathematicians are trying to offer theories about climate change and are being kept out of the debate?  I know that in academia, this kind of blind rivalry often happens, to the detriment of all.  I'd be interested in hearing anything you might have to say about this, if you know of any cases.  It just seems that there is actually a lot of interdisciplinary cooperation happening in the study of climate change.

[GiC]

^  Well, I know that theoretical mathematics must play a role.  But going back a billion years is just too difficult for us to do with any great accuracy.  Paleoclimatology is a newly emerging science.  We have only recently been able to examine clues to the past of the planet that have up until now been unavailable to us; for example, layers of sediment on the ocean floor.  So of course the models are in one sense flawed in the  that the farther back in time one goes,the more difficult it becomes to determine climatic patterns with accuracy.  But these models are the best that we have right now.  Your implication that noone is considering paleoclimatology seriously seems strange to me.  From what I can see, as I have mentioned above, paleoclimatology is an exciting, newly emerging science that is being pursued with great vigor by many.  I don't see that your conclusion about human intervention not being the cause for recent climate change follows at all.  It seems to me that this is what a clear majority of paleoclimatologists have concluded up until now.

I've read different and conflicting things about paleoclimatologists and this debate, though they do seem to be some of the most divided. While our data on the history of the world's climate is far from complete, it is fairly well accepted that the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelvin warmer than the current temperature. Because of this Occam's razor would suggest we assume this is part of a natural cycle, unless substantial evidence can be presented to the contrary.

Do you think that mathematicians are trying to offer theories about climate change and are being kept out of the debate?  I know that in academia, this kind of blind rivalry often happens, to the detriment of all.  I'd be interested in hearing anything you might have to say about this, if you know of any cases.  It just seems that there is actually a lot of interdisciplinary cooperation happening in the study of climate change.

What I have read that mathematicians have brought to this debate is what I believe to be the virtue they can bring to any scientific debate, dispassionate objectivity. In the end, the models simply arn't good enough and the data simply isn't complete enough to determine what, exactly, is causing a global rise in temperatures. It could be a result of human involvement, but even the most agressive models won't say this with any more than about 70% certainty. If a theorem was presented to be true with 70% certainty in mathematics the person presenting it would be laughed out of the room...and forbidden from ever returning...yet there are people who want to make policy based on a theorem that only claims a 70% chance of being true.

Mathematics bring rigour to science, which is sorely need when science has become politicized like this issue has. The UN report on this issue is a perfect example of what's wrong with the scientific discussion, scientific models arn't developed and established by taking a straw-poll of current opinions, it's done by using them to make hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and the model withstanding the test. We don't have a good scientifc theory in this field because the work being done is more a political popularity contest than hard science. Which is why mathematicians, who are even willing to entertain doubt on something as fundamental as 1+1=2, need to be the ones mediating the debate.

[Anastasios]

GisC,

When you are not talking about religion I like what you have to say

[Fr. George]

What I have read that mathematicians have brought to this debate is what I believe to be the virtue they can bring to any scientific debate, dispassionate objectivity. In the end, the models simply arn't good enough and the data simply isn't complete enough to determine what, exactly, is causing a global rise in temperatures. It could be a result of human involvement, but even the most agressive models won't say this with any more than about 70% certainty. If a theorem was presented to be true with 70% certainty in mathematics the person presenting it would be laughed out of the room...and forbidden from ever returning...yet there are people who want to make policy based on a theorem that only claims a 70% chance of being true.

Mathematics bring rigour to science, which is sorely need when science has become politicized like this issue has. The UN report on this issue is a perfect example of what's wrong with the scientific discussion, scientific models arn't developed and established by taking a straw-poll of current opinions, it's done by using them to make hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and the model withstanding the test. We don't have a good scientifc theory in this field because the work being done is more a political popularity contest than hard science. Which is why mathematicians, who are even willing to entertain doubt on something as fundamental as 1+1=2, need to be the ones mediating the debate. 

Bravo.

[Αριστοκλής]

Yeah, begrudgingly I must agree with applause (but don't get used to my complimenting him).

[Pravoslavbob]

I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said that I didn't agree. 
I think GiC is coming at the  issue a bit too much from the strictly mathematical perspective.  And I do not agree at all that the genuine research that has been done in  this field has been politically motivated.
If I may say so, IMHO some of you guys show that you really have this as a pet issue on which you will not budge no matter what when you applaud GiC on this issue.  It's really quite transparent.   

[Credo.InDeum]

The apocalypse of saint John the divine is notoriously obscure to modern readers yet it has a message that manages to reach across the centuries in surprising ways. This passage in chapter 11 struck me as one of those cases where the voice of the apostle has something to say about the issue of this thread.

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and voices could be heard shouting in heaven, calling, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.' The twenty-four elders, enthroned in the presence of God, prostrated themselves and touched the ground with their foreheads worshipping God with these words, 'We give thanks to you, Almighty Lord God, He who is, He who was, for assuming your great power and beginning your reign. The nations were in uproar and now the time has come for your retribution, and for the dead to be judged, and for your servants the prophets, for the saints and for those who fear your name, small and great alike, to be rewarded. The time has come to destroy those who are destroying the earth.' Then the sanctuary of God in heaven opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it. Then came flashes of lightning, peals of thunder and an earthquake and violent hail.
(Revelation 11:15-19 NJB)

[GiC]

I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said that I didn't agree. 
I think GiC is coming at the  issue a bit too much from the strictly mathematical perspective.

Too mathematical? How is that even theoretically possible? Mathematics is the language and the standard of the sciences, there can be no science that is both true and useful without the aid of the principles of mathematics...the stronger the influence of mathematics the more viable the science. When Natural Philosophy consisted of arguing about which celestial body moved around what other celestial body without any mathematics to support, it was an interesting philosophical discussion but not much use as a science. When Kepler and Newton started writing equations and applied the strict principles of mathematics to physical phenomena, the modern and useful field of physics emerged as a true science, testable and falsifiable, a means to viable truth. Likewise, while biology consisted of little more than naming plants and animals and creating arbitrary classifications it was of some use but hardly a viable science, but then when Mendel was able to develop mathematical systems, testable and falsifiable by the principles of mathematics, for biological phenomena the field was transformed into a real science (well, saddly it wasn't until about 1900 when Mendel was rediscovered that these changes truly began, but without this leap from simple observation to mathematics modern biology would never have been possible).

So, I must say, I am absolutely shocked that one who considers themselves a scientest could even suggest that there is such thing as a 'too mathematical' of an approach. It is the pursuit of the sciences to make them more mathematical and, thus, more viable and more true. It is not without good cause that Sr. Francis Bacon wrote:

And therefore in mathematics alone are there demonstrations of the most convincing kind through a necessary cause. And therefore here alone can a man arive at the truth from the nature of this science. Likewise in the other sciences there are doubts and opinions and contradictions on our part, so that we scarcely agee on the most trifling question or in a single sophism; for in these sciences there are from their nature no processes of drawing figures and of reckonings, by which all things must be proved true. And therefore in mathematics alone is there certainty without doubt.

Wherefore it is evident that if in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics, in so far as disposed through it we are able to reach cetainty in other sciences and truth by the exclusion of error.

And I do not agree at all that the genuine research that has been done in  this field has been politically motivated.

No, not all of it...but the research that has been done is hardly absolutely conclusive. And when a field starts trying to determine truth by taking opinion polls of those involved, it's very difficult to continue to take it serious as a science.

If I may say so, IMHO some of you guys show that you really have this as a pet issue on which you will not budge no matter what when you applaud GiC on this issue.  It's really quite transparent.   

I confess, I do have a pet issue...I really do believe in this whole Mathematics thing...I know, it's pretty far out there, using mathematics as the standard of the sciences. I'm sure the sciences would be so much easier if we could just vote on things rather than having to deal with all those hard and confusing numbers and axioms and theorems.

[stanley123]

Mathematics is the language and the standard of the sciences, there can be no science that is both true and useful without the aid of the principles of mathematics...the stronger the influence of mathematics the more viable the science.

Yes. There is a nice article in wikipedia on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. This is a spinoff of an article by Wigner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

[John of the North]

I've read different and conflicting things about paleoclimatologists and this debate, though they do seem to be some of the most divided. While our data on the history of the world's climate is far from complete, it is fairly well accepted that the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelvin warmer than the current temperature. Because of this Occam's razor would suggest we assume this is part of a natural cycle, unless substantial evidence can be presented to the contrary.

How much evidence?? We have to wait 1 billion more years for you to simply say that 2 billion years is not enough and we need to wait even longer??

Even if it is part of a natural cycle, does that preclude us aggravating the natural cycle. Sure the earth is warming, sure we are chopping down forests by the acre, sure we are spewing gases into the air, but hey the Earth would be warming anyway....

[jlerms]

I was talking to a research geologist  yesterday that was telling me about his work for the last few years. They have been drilling  into the earth (down to about 3 miles )to store CO 2 emissions collected from electrical plants.
And have noted that there are no detrimental effects (unlike traditional landfills).  There is a general agreement among world climatologists that we should be in a cooling phase but instead are experiencing global warming due to  manmade outputs.  Serious replanting of trees may help for a 100 yrs or so, but we need to do something about our increase of CO2 in the long run.  As people are fond of electricity...especially airconditioning in the summertime...it would be beneficial to trap the gases and store them deep within the Earth until we can come up with a better idea.  I wish there was a way to harness  it into positive energy- or blast it into outer space.

Juliana

[Fr. George]

There is a general agreement among world climatologists that we should be in a cooling phase but instead are experiencing global warming due to  manmade outputs.

Really - I'd like to see where that's stated, because I think one of the big points that has come out is that there isn't a general agreement that we should be in a cooling phase: the assertion above in this thread is that we should be in a warming phase (GiC); and the assertion of a meteorologist I know who studies global warming specifically as a part of his job is that we are in a natural warming period (which we are probably accelerating, but not causing).

[Jetavan]

Some interesting videos on climate change skepticism.

[Irish_Melkite]

As for there being a "scientific consensus" that man is causing global warming... there's only one answer:  BULL.  The only "experts" who are getting press are not the consensus.

[Jetavan]

Krugman on China:

He continues: “If you worry about climate change, China’s growth is a wonderful human success story that could kill us all.”

[Opus118]

I believe that the reasoning behind Occam's razor is sound, there is no reason to add unnecessary variables.

From my perspective Occam's razor is sound as a starting point, but I would say that it is rare that it works with the exception of very minute and well controlled and already understood circumstances. Wish it were true, it would make my life easier, but it is far from being true in regard to discovery.

Just using this post to spout off. My rule is that if you are working with complex systems, ignore Occam's razor as soon as things fail to fit. Don't wait, you will be better off because this old notion is rarely worthwhile other than getting you started.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom