Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2017's global temperatures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Probably the bit I bolded. 'Subtract' implies omission or removal here to my mind.
    Reading it fully in context would assure one that 'subtract' does not mean removal of data.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Reading it fully in context would assure one that 'subtract' does not mean removal of data.
      Being less of a jerk would insure people taking you more seriously - but we can't have everything.

      Actually, omission is better than weighting - you can make a better case for 'we need to leave X out of this for Y reason' than ''okay, we're gonna assume X = Y for <insert goobledy gook here>" - in terms of explaining it to those without a statistical background.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Being less of a jerk would insure people taking you more seriously - but we can't have everything.

        Actually, omission is better than weighting - you can make a better case for 'we need to leave X out of this for Y reason' than ''okay, we're gonna assume X = Y for <insert goobledy gook here>" - in terms of explaining it to those without a statistical background.
        The difficulty in explaining why certain adjustments are made is due primarily to three factors:

        1) politically motiviate mistrust
        2) scientific ignorance of the audience
        3) malicious players in the mix who routinely misrepresent or lie about the adjustments being used*.

        #3 includes those hampered by 1 and 2 but who are unaware of that fact.

        I mentioned several types of adjustment in my previous email. But I think more important than that is the study I mentioned in terms of dealing with two. The USCRN is a set of weather stations that are set up far from any manmade influence and in absolutely pristine conditions in terms of the equipment and methods used to gather data from them. That data, unmodified except perhaps for the most basic of wild point editing (e.g. thermometer breaks on day x and gives crazy reading, is replaced and funtional on day x+1. data point from day x must be either removed or normalized), when simply averaged over time, produces an almost identical temperature trend to the data using all those 'questionable stations' and 'questionable modificiations'. The implication then at the most simple level then is those modifications would appear to be either correct of of no consequence whether one understands them or not.

        The next step then in understanding what is going on is to take a look at some of the factors that can give a bad result and require action. One of the less obvious is something called "Time of Observation Bias" (TOB or ToOB). This is a bias that results from taking temperature readings at different times of the day across the various stations. TOB adjustment then (mostly) removes the bias by determining the known, measured bias associated with a station's data reading time(s) against the current established norm for data reading time (s).

        As for whether or not it makes sense to try remove a known bias (can we expect such bias removal efforts to be effective, accurate).

        If possible, listen to a record (vinyl) through equipment not employing the RIAA equalization curve established for record and playback in that media. It will sound pretty bad. Very tinny, and with lots more pops and hisses than you are used to. That is because when the biases are known in a system, equalization or bias removal works very, very well to restore the original signal. In this case, applying the equalizations curve, which is designed to take into account the acoustic energy distrubution of music and muscial instruments, allows your record (vinyl) to produce a relatively quiet and clear audio playback, significantly superior to what the media itself can do unequalized.

        And that is where the trust issue comes into play, and I believe it is the primary factor. Unless one takes a lot of time, and has a non-trivial understanding of the systems used and climate in general, it becomes virtually impossible to explain why the raw data is not used without modifiation**. And with lots of folks out there claiming the modifications are not scientifically justified and designed to favor certain monetary and political interests, the waters become significantly muddied, and a lot of people get led down the primrose path thinking the truth is X when in fact the truth is Y.

        Jim

        *this happens mostly on the political/anti AGW side of the argument, but to jack up the mistrust issue, there have been notable attempts to bias the data on the science/ pro-AGW side as well

        ** consider your <insert gobledygook here> characterization.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2018, 08:54 AM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #19
          I think the other thing here is that, on most complicated topics, there is no one-size-fits-all explanation that will work for everyone. I phrased things in a way that made sense for me; Teal, because of her background, would find different explanation more compelling, etc. It's important to have a diversity of explanations, even if they all distill down to the same thing, because you never know what'll click with someone.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            The difficulty in explaining why certain adjustments are made is due primarily to three factors:

            1) politically motiviate mistrust
            2) scientific ignorance of the audience
            3) malicious players in the mix who routinely misrepresent or lie about the adjustments being used*.

            #3 includes those hampered by 1 and 2 but who are unaware of that fact.

            I mentioned several types of adjustment in my previous email. But I think more important than that is the study I mentioned in terms of dealing with two. The USCRN is a set of weather stations that are set up far from any manmade influence and in absolutely pristine conditions in terms of the equipment and methods used to gather data from them. That data, unmodified except perhaps for the most basic of wild point editing (e.g. thermometer breaks on day x and gives crazy reading, is replaced and funtional on day x+1. data point from day x must be either removed or normalized), when simply averaged over time, produces an almost identical temperature trend to the data using all those 'questionable stations' and 'questionable modificiations'. The implication then at the most simple level then is those modifications would appear to be either correct of of no consequence whether one understands them or not.

            The next step then in understanding what is going on is to take a look at some of the factors that can give a bad result and require action. One of the less obvious is something called "Time of Observation Bias" (TOB or ToOB). This is a bias that results from taking temperature readings at different times of the day across the various stations. TOB adjustment then (mostly) removes the bias by determining the known, measured bias associated with a station's data reading time(s) against the current established norm for data reading time (s).

            As for whether or not it makes sense to try remove a known bias (can we expect such bias removal efforts to be effective, accurate).

            If possible, listen to a record (vinyl) through equipment not employing the RIAA equalization curve established for record and playback in that media. It will sound pretty bad. Very tinny, and with lots more pops and hisses than you are used to. That is because when the biases are known in a system, equalization or bias removal works very, very well to restore the original signal. In this case, applying the equalizations curve, which is designed to take into account the acoustic energy distrubution of music and muscial instruments, allows your record (vinyl) to produce a relatively quiet and clear audio playback, significantly superior to what the media itself can do unequalized.

            And that is where the trust issue comes into play, and I believe it is the primary factor. Unless one takes a lot of time, and has a non-trivial understanding of the systems used and climate in general, it becomes virtually impossible to explain why the raw data is not used without modifiation**. And with lots of folks out there claiming the modifications are not scientifically justified and designed to favor certain monetary and political interests, the waters become significantly muddied, and a lot of people get led down the primrose path thinking the truth is X when in fact the truth is Y.

            Jim

            *this happens mostly on the political/anti AGW side of the argument, but to jack up the mistrust issue, there have been notable attempts to bias the data on the science/ pro-AGW side as well

            ** consider your <insert gobledygook here> characterization.
            You do realize I have no issue with the idea of having to adjust to account for a bias (or skew in my terminology). But in this case, and in the political arena, I think you're (general) better off assuming your (personal - post above) Number 2 rather than Number 3. You answer the why portion yourself in your footnotes.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              I think the other thing here is that, on most complicated topics, there is no one-size-fits-all explanation that will work for everyone. I phrased things in a way that made sense for me; Teal, because of her background, would find different explanation more compelling, etc. It's important to have a diversity of explanations, even if they all distill down to the same thing, because you never know what'll click with someone.
              It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue - and the proposed solutions require political measures. You (general) can't get away with 'it's complicated, just trust us' when the political/economic impacts of implementation can and will be devastating for some - in some cases many - people.

              The initial poor handling (regardless of source) has laid the framework of mistrust - it's not good enough to prove something to the scientific community if you (again general) want implementation - now proof has to be supplied to a skeptical public that isn't going to have the statistical or research background to just know that there are sometimes reasons for altering raw data that are not only benign but necessary/

              Sparky was correct that the data wasn't raw - and I think the scientific/political (for want of a better term) community has an uphill battle to prove the need for implementation - and will be very sadly surprised if it thinks the political pendulum can't or won't swing especially when the proposed solutions are so very long term.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue.
                I think you're right in terms of the big picture understanding. But i think when it comes to basic factual issues - what is this information, and how was it generated - the politics can often be set aside.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue - and the proposed solutions require political measures. You (general) can't get away with 'it's complicated, just trust us' when the political/economic impacts of implementation can and will be devastating for some - in some cases many - people.

                  The initial poor handling (regardless of source) has laid the framework of mistrust - it's not good enough to prove something to the scientific community if you (again general) want implementation - now proof has to be supplied to a skeptical public that isn't going to have the statistical or research background to just know that there are sometimes reasons for altering raw data that are not only benign but necessary/

                  Sparky was correct that the data wasn't raw - and I think the scientific/political (for want of a better term) community has an uphill battle to prove the need for implementation - and will be very sadly surprised if it thinks the political pendulum can't or won't swing especially when the proposed solutions are so very long term.
                  Taking into account what TheLurch said, consider that your statement only considers one side of the issue. We know that large players in the oil industry have directly funded the major anti-AGW voices. In a scenario that is not all that different from what we saw with the cigarette industry's funding of 'studies' that conflicted with the general medical consensus that smoking itself is bad for people. And those same big money and basic livelihood issues (re small family tobacco farms in states like NC) were in play muddying the waters. But perhaps to a lesson could be learned there. The basic science of the issue was right, and I believe it is right on this issue as well. It's mostly just a matter of science.

                  But there are a lot of consequences to that and so big players want the science to NOT be clear because a clear and solid scientific consensus is a hard bit to argue with, even today. So to me, and the approach I used (since I was in fact pre-disposed to believe that big government and radical liberal interests would be trying to force the science their direction) was to get down to the most basic, most powerful arguments I could find on both sides and look into them. What I found was that most of the anti-AGW arguments claiming distortion of the data just didn't hold water. Claims regarding bad station placement, invalid adjustments, faked data, they all just didn't stand up. Further, claims that might have merit, that were legitimate challenges, tended to be investigated (not shelved) and generally that research would provide meaningful and consistent answers (e.g. the relationship between the transfer of heat to the oceans from the atmosphere and the flattening of the temperature trend observed in the early 2000's) We might argue how much warning. We might argue pre-80's of the A in AGW was a sure thing. But the bottom line is that pretty much no matter whether you low ball or high ball the results, AGW is real.

                  So the trend to continue to try to deny its happening just goes to an anti-science sentiment in those involved. What to do about it is going to be hugely political. And it certainly is not something I would like to see handled to the extreme in either direction. But to continue as some are to try to deny what is clear scientifically is the wrong way to approach the issue.

                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Taking into account what TheLurch said, consider that your statement only considers one side of the issue. We know that large players in the oil industry have directly funded the major anti-AGW voices. In a scenario that is not all that different from what we saw with the cigarette industry's funding of 'studies' that conflicted with the general medical consensus that smoking itself is bad for people. And those same big money and basic livelihood issues (re small family tobacco farms in states like NC) were in play muddying the waters. But perhaps to a lesson could be learned there. The basic science of the issue was right, and I believe it is right on this issue as well. It's mostly just a matter of science.

                    But there are a lot of consequences to that and so big players want the science to NOT be clear because a clear and solid scientific consensus is a hard bit to argue with, even today. So to me, and the approach I used (since I was in fact pre-disposed to believe that big government and radical liberal interests would be trying to force the science their direction) was to get down to the most basic, most powerful arguments I could find on both sides and look into them. What I found was that most of the anti-AGW arguments claiming distortion of the data just didn't hold water. Claims regarding bad station placement, invalid adjustments, faked data, they all just didn't stand up. Further, claims that might have merit, that were legitimate challenges, tended to be investigated (not shelved) and generally that research would provide meaningful and consistent answers (e.g. the relationship between the transfer of heat to the oceans from the atmosphere and the flattening of the temperature trend observed in the early 2000's) We might argue how much warning. We might argue pre-80's of the A in AGW was a sure thing. But the bottom line is that pretty much no matter whether you low ball or high ball the results, AGW is real.

                    So the trend to continue to try to deny its happening just goes to an anti-science sentiment in those involved. What to do about it is going to be hugely political. And it certainly is not something I would like to see handled to the extreme in either direction. But to continue as some are to try to deny what is clear scientifically is the wrong way to approach the issue.

                    Jim
                    No, my position is purely that you (general - pro-change) have to deal with the problem of public skepticism in order to gain the implementations you believe are needed. Doing that by calling people - even by implication - 'deniers' backfires - and is doing so now in the bigger picture. Anti-science comments aren't going to help, either. The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically). That is a MAJOR hill politically - just like one should stop digging when at the bottom of a hole, piling on more dirt when trying to level a mountain is rather counter productive.

                    I didn't take a position on the scientific validity - that I can't ascertain. Do I think it's real? I remain skeptical, as I explained previously, but I'm trying to be reasonable. All I'm saying is that explaining that the data needed to be weighted to deal with a bias (actually, I'm no longer sure what the heck they did to it - weighting with a climate model? Yeesh, glad I don't have to do that!) would have been a better strategy than questioning his motives. He's skeptical, the quote clearly states the data wasn't raw, of course that looks suspicious to him - but questioning his motives throws fuel on that fire - no biggie in a single forum but it's almost par for the course for the pro side - and a losing strategy long term. If you're right and this is real, fighting politically stupid is worse than just decommissioning the EPA tomorrow.

                    And yes, I get it - it's hard to have to argue the same thing repeatedly. Try explaining the US appellate system sometime if you want to see just how incredibly hard it can be when people think they know more than they really do. But snarking - even mildly - won't win anyone over. If you're right, what do you want? To make necessary changes in time to stop catastrophe, or to be able to say 'told you so' while swimming in the Gulf - off the coast of Tennessee?
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      I think you're right in terms of the big picture understanding. But i think when it comes to basic factual issues - what is this information, and how was it generated - the politics can often be set aside.
                      I grant that with a caveat - it depends where you are and who you're talking to. Politics isn't easily 'set aside' simply because it's integral to human existence. That's part of why a conversation can take political overtones when no one intended such.

                      And with something so highly politicized, it's nearly impossible to isolate a discussion even of factual matters without making a formal statement as such - and even then, tough to do.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically).
                        What misconduct are you referring to?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          No, my position is purely that you (general - pro-change) have to deal with the problem of public skepticism in order to gain the implementations you believe are needed. Doing that by calling people - even by implication - 'deniers' backfires - and is doing so now in the bigger picture. Anti-science comments aren't going to help, either. The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically). That is a MAJOR hill politically - just like one should stop digging when at the bottom of a hole, piling on more dirt when trying to level a mountain is rather counter productive.

                          I didn't take a position on the scientific validity - that I can't ascertain. Do I think it's real? I remain skeptical, as I explained previously, but I'm trying to be reasonable. All I'm saying is that explaining that the data needed to be weighted to deal with a bias (actually, I'm no longer sure what the heck they did to it - weighting with a climate model? Yeesh, glad I don't have to do that!) would have been a better strategy than questioning his motives. He's skeptical, the quote clearly states the data wasn't raw, of course that looks suspicious to him - but questioning his motives throws fuel on that fire - no biggie in a single forum but it's almost par for the course for the pro side - and a losing strategy long term. If you're right and this is real, fighting politically stupid is worse than just decommissioning the EPA tomorrow.

                          And yes, I get it - it's hard to have to argue the same thing repeatedly. Try explaining the US appellate system sometime if you want to see just how incredibly hard it can be when people think they know more than they really do. But snarking - even mildly - won't win anyone over. If you're right, what do you want? To make necessary changes in time to stop catastrophe, or to be able to say 'told you so' while swimming in the Gulf - off the coast of Tennessee?
                          I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.

                          But unfortunately we also have a large number of scientifically ignorant but religiously fervent people out there being led by the nose through unscrupulous forces seeking to reinforce their own power base. I think it began with percived threats like evolution and ignorant responses like the Young Earth Science movement instilling massive skepticism and even a fear of science in the evangelicals in this country. And that certainly has not been helped by the fact that almost all 'popular' voices for science have also tended to be anti-religious in the position. Asimov, Sagan less so, but now Dawkins and Hitchens and others dogmatically claiming that to undestand science is to realize their can't be a God or gods.

                          In the end though ... all things being equal ... science has led to a massive improvement in the human condition and has resulted in the elimination of many, many evils. For the religious right to be so solidly against so many scientific conclusions is an obvious red-flag to anyone looking to evaluate the validity of their position.

                          To reverse the trend Christians have got to face their fears and stop listening to voices that claim to be on their side but are in fact just using them as a means to their own selfish ends. I don't believe the radical elements of the left that would shut down our economy and starve millions to combat global warming should be in charge (and likely they won't). But likewise, I don't think it's doing the conservative side any favors that they've elected arguably the most selfish and ignorant person in history to lead the free world. A man almost incapable of speaking without lying to help support their causes. Causes that in many cases, unfortunately, are based in ignorance.

                          This kind of behavior unfortunately invites a hostile response from those that use the phrase 'climate deniars'.

                          Jim
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2018, 10:54 AM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm going to argue with a few things in the sense of "have a friendly exploration of the issue by presenting contrasting ideas", just so my intention isn't misunderstood.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.
                            I agree that in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a climate denier isn't helpful. There are a couple of instances where i'd say it's appropriate, though. For example, the oil companies hired some of the same people that the cigarette companies did to attack climate science - they're essentially hired guns paid to deny evidence. I don't think calling them climate deniers is inappropriate. The same goes for a handful of hardcore, committed people that will not accept any evidence. For example, the blogger Anthony Watts had said multiple times he'd accept whatever Berkeley Earth found with the temperature record. But when Berkeley Earth ended up supporting NASA and NOAA, Watts backed away from the whole thing.

                            Of course, highlighting those examples supports your larger point - that in the vast majority of cases, there's nothing like that sort of commitment to dismiss any and all evidence. So while it may be appropriate to use the term, the situations where that's the case are pretty rare.


                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            But unfortunately we also have a large number of scientifically ignorant but religiously fervent people out there being led by the nose through unscrupulous forces seeking to reinforce their own power base. I think it began with percived threats like evolution and ignorant responses like the Young Earth Science movement instilling massive skepticism and even a fear of science in the evangelicals in this country.
                            I think that the adoption of climate change as a religious issue was relatively recent. Opposition started out largely on economic grounds and philosophical differences about the role of government regulation. To the extent that there was religious fervor involved, it seemed to be driven by the belief that the free market can solve everything, despite the numerous historic examples to the contrary.

                            I think that politics acted as a bridge that brought it into the religious arena. Shared values - religious conservatives and political conservatives overlap, and share a mistrust of government regulation - helped make climate change an issue among religious conservatives. It was only at that point that you started seeing religiously-based arguments for ignoring the scientific results.

                            The end result of that are things like the Cornwall Alliance declaration on global warming, which is explicitly dismisses the science due to religious beliefs. But it took a number of years to get from "regulations are bad for the economy" to that.


                            There's a funny connection between the two issues highlighted above. The Cornwall declaration has an entire section entitled "What we deny", and it includes "We deny that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." So i'd find it appropriate to say they've engaged in denialism. :)
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.
                              ...

                              Jim
                              I have no particular issue with this but I am going to nitpick a bit on this one point. I doubt capacity for comprehension was a major player in this - I suspect that's not exactly what you're getting at anyway. "Cut on the bias, baste and add darts." is a perfectly clear set of instructions - but only if you already know the jargon. Those without training don't necessarily lack the capacity to understand - they lack the foundation.

                              I also suspect the pride and arrogance thing came just as much from those who believed in global warming but who wouldn't know a thermometer from a barometer. That's a big part of the problem of using that kind of derogatory jargon - it sounds mostly like 'rah, rah' for our side' and little like 'you know better'.
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                I'm going to argue with a few things in the sense of "have a friendly exploration of the issue by presenting contrasting ideas", just so my intention isn't misunderstood.
                                Never an issue with you ;)

                                I agree that in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a climate denier isn't helpful. There are a couple of instances where i'd say it's appropriate, though. For example, the oil companies hired some of the same people that the cigarette companies did to attack climate science - they're essentially hired guns paid to deny evidence. I don't think calling them climate deniers is inappropriate. The same goes for a handful of hardcore, committed people that will not accept any evidence. For example, the blogger Anthony Watts had said multiple times he'd accept whatever Berkeley Earth found with the temperature record. But when Berkeley Earth ended up supporting NASA and NOAA, Watts backed away from the whole thing.
                                interesting. I always recognized the similarity between the exxon funding of anti-AGW research and the cigarette company funding of pro-cigarette research, but I was not aware they hired the very same 'research' firms/individuals!

                                I found this article in Scientific American that supports that claim for others that might be interested.

                                https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sway-public1/

                                Of course, highlighting those examples supports your larger point - that in the vast majority of cases, there's nothing like that sort of commitment to dismiss any and all evidence. So while it may be appropriate to use the term, the situations where that's the case are pretty rare.
                                We agree. Although I sometimes violate this principle if my annoyance with a particularly obtuse person gets the best of me, in general if one wants to keep channels of communication open, it's best not to resort to direct, personal attacks. It just doesn't accomplish anything useful unless the goal is to motivate irrational opposition to some specific group. But that is its real danger as well. The demonization of a one group by another is essentially the first step to some sort of war - be it ideological or physical. And it is also the tool of despots and dictators to marginalze and or remove those that resist their oppression. So in almost all respects it would seem logical to avoid that sort of thing.


                                I think that the adoption of climate change as a religious issue was relatively recent. Opposition started out largely on economic grounds and philosophical differences about the role of government regulation. To the extent that there was religious fervor involved, it seemed to be driven by the belief that the free market can solve everything, despite the numerous historic examples to the contrary.

                                I think that politics acted as a bridge that brought it into the religious arena. Shared values - religious conservatives and political conservatives overlap, and share a mistrust of government regulation - helped make climate change an issue among religious conservatives. It was only at that point that you started seeing religiously-based arguments for ignoring the scientific results.
                                I see that. In my response I'm really focused on why the religious evangelicals would get dragged into the AGW debate predominantly on the anti-AGW side. On the surface, one would think a theology that sees humanity as caretakers of the Earth would tend to be for those things that protect it or nurture it. But that fear of science based on battles over evolution and with many of the anti-religious voices of science, and the sort of 'don't look at the real evidence, it's a lie of the Devil' mentality that accompanies YEC sort of dialogues I believe is at least in part what has predisposed the evangelical community to tend to be on the anti-AGW side of the fence.

                                The end result of that are things like the Cornwall Alliance declaration on global warming, which is explicitly dismisses the science due to religious beliefs. But it took a number of years to get from "regulations are bad for the economy" to that.
                                :
                                Ugh - I had no idea some evangelical group had an official anti-AGW statement conflating faith and that specific conclusion. But there are also those that have come out with much more positive statements:

                                https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ical-christian

                                http://www.yecaction.org/*

                                and here is a discussion of it in Christianity Today:

                                https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...limate-change/

                                There's a funny connection between the two issues highlighted above. The Cornwall declaration has an entire section entitled "What we deny", and it includes "We deny that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." So i'd find it appropriate to say they've engaged in denialism. :)
                                I would agree that is a reasonable conclusion for that particular declaration ;)


                                Jim

                                * This is a bit comical. The youth organization website uses 'yecaction', which could mislead one to thing they are Young Earth Creationists (yec), but 'yec' here stands for

                                'Young Evangelicals for Climate action".
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-24-2018, 08:08 AM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X