Climate change consensus

[pancreasman]

You want to talk about consensus, what about the over 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition explicitly rejecting the theory that human activity is causing or will cause catrastrophic changes to the earth's climate?

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

And what about the fact that earth's climate is stubbornly refusing to cooperate with the models and predictions of the global warming charlatans. They predicted that the ice caps would be gone by this year, but they're larger and thicker than ever before, and then there's the inconvenient truth that the earth's atmospheric temperature hasn't actually warmed for nearly two-decades. But the charlatans are still convinced that global warming is happening, so they reasoned, "Gee, all that extra heat that should be in the atmosphere must be hiding in the oceans! Yeah! Yeah!" Nope. Scientists are scratching their heads trying to figure out where all the "missing" heat went when the most obvious answer, of course, is that it's not "missing", it was simply never here to begin with.

Climate science is very complex. NO question. Have we got a firm grip on it? Not totally. Could they still be right? What if they are?

Your petition project is of scientists in general rather than experts in the field. It reminds me of the 'Steve' petition.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

[Darth Executor]

At one time, very few geologists accepted plate tectonics. At one time, very few climatologists accepted global warming.

Then the evidence came in, which is what scientists use to weigh scientific arguments.

While science doesn't depend on consensus, public perceptions of scientific positions by non-scientists should. Yet in this case, as in the cases for opponents of evolution and the accepted age of the earth, a vocal minority taken almost exclusively from the same pool of religiously and ideologically-motivated naysayers continue to claim that scientists do not know their science, and that the evidence supporting their positions does not exist.

While scientific consensus apart from evidence says very little, religious consensus in opposition to the science, and in denial of the evidence ... says quite a bit.

As much as I appreciate my Christian friends and relatives, their tacit and occasionally active support for these disinformation campaigns is a deal-killer for any possible personal conversion to their faith. If I can't trust them to defend what is true and oppose what is false in the things I can verify, I cannot trust them to defend truth and oppose untruth in the things I cannot.

As ever, Jesse

"Believe in global warming or I'll burn in hell!!!!"

I've gotta say I've seen more persuasive arguments.

[Adrift]

I must say, this reply got me thinking...

What strikes me as even more telling, is that the historicity of Jesus has been examined almost entirely by theologian historians.

What's a theologian historian? Sounds redundant. A theologian is simply one with a specialization in religious studies, which is invaluable in the study of, well, Jesus, Christian belief, Jewish belief, the early Christian church, and even Pagan Roman beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc.

If we were to try to factor out this bias by eliminating the theologians, we don't get anything close to a consensus.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you eliminate the theologians you're not eliminating bias. First, you'll never really get rid of bias, no matter who you get rid of. Second, if you were assuming Theologian = Christian, you're wrong. There are plenty of Biblical scholars who are described as a "theologian" who embrace a number of worldviews. Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Reza Aslan, Robert Funk; Academic groups like The Jesus Seminar, and the Context Group are made up of a variety of scholars with a number of religious and non-religious worldviews, all of whom, as far as I know, are considered theologians. And even if you took away all of the Christian theologians, you'd still be left with an overwhelming consensus of NT scholars who would argue for the historicity of Jesus.

And this is true for a very simple reason - there is one source, and only one source, from which to derive that historicity. No valid history outside that source mentions anyone matching the description, and there is plenty of such external history.

Only one source? What are you talking about?

Contrast this with the techniques for measuring atomospheric change, which are not historical techniques.

The parallel is again striking. Those denying global warming have very real, very obvious economic vested interests in not wanting to do anything about it. Just as those finding Jesus to be a historical person have a strong vested interest in this being the case. In neither case are the facts paramount in arriving at an opinion.

I admit this isn't very clear to me. By now, there really is little debate about human influence on the planet's climate. There is hot debate about what, if anything, to do about it. Those most strongly against doing anything about it, tend to deny there's a problem.

I have no idea what you're on about.

[phank]

What's a theologian historian? Sounds redundant. A theologian is simply one with a specialization in religious studies, which is invaluable in the study of, well, Jesus, Christian belief, Jewish belief, the early Christian church, and even Pagan Roman beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc.

Huh? Most theologians are not historians, and most historians are not theologians.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you eliminate the theologians you're not eliminating bias.

Very true. But until fairly recently, very few historians were willing to make the rather strenuous effort to dig into the historicity of Jesus UNLESS they already accepted it, and were mostly validating what they already knew. And the result of this is, the vast majority of those historians evaluating the historicity of Jesus knew before they started what their answer must be. And this is a comment about consensus (our topic). While everyone is biased, if the overwhelming majority is so biased that they cannot possibly decide against their bias, AND they're all biased in the same direction, the consensus is rigged. I would place more credence in non-Christian historical investigation of Christ, much as I'd be more likely to trust a Christian historian over a Muslim historian in testing the historicity of Mohammad.

First, you'll never really get rid of bias, no matter who you get rid of. Second, if you were assuming Theologian = Christian, you're wrong. There are plenty of Biblical scholars who are described as a "theologian" who embrace a number of worldviews. Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Reza Aslan, Robert Funk, Popular groups like The Jesus Seminar, and the Context Group are made up of a variety of scholars with a number of religious and non-religious worldviews, all of whom, as far as I know, are considered theologians. And even if you took away all of the Christian theologians, you'd still be left with an overwhelming consensus of NT scholars who would assert the historical Jesus view.

I haven't done this sort of survey, so you may be right. But Ehrman is an interesting case, so you might be interested in this book review:

http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

Only one source? What are you talking about?

That book review linked just above has a nice diagram that saves a thousand words. Basically, it says that ultimately all the tales of Jesus derive from Paul.

I have no idea what you're on about.

1) Measurement techniques are not historical reconstruction techniques.
2) Nonetheless, outside of those who deal directly with the measurements, opinion is politically driven and not scientifically driven.
3) The political aspect of global warming is largly divorced from the scientific aspect.

[Adrift]

Huh? Most theologians are not historians, and most historians are not theologians.

That's of course, not what I'm saying.

Very true. But until fairly recently, very few historians were willing to make the rather strenuous effort to dig into the historicity of Jesus UNLESS they already accepted it, and were mostly validating what they already knew. And the result of this is, the vast majority of those historians evaluating the historicity of Jesus knew before they started what their answer must be. And this is a comment about consensus (our topic).

What do you mean, "unless they already accepted it"? Accepted the historical Jesus? That's true for practically every single historical individual ever. Are you asserting that historians should assume that Socrates, Martin Luther, John Locke, and Henry David Thoreau never existed until they start studying them?

While everyone is biased, if the overwhelming majority is so biased that they cannot possibly decide against their bias, AND they're all biased in the same direction, the consensus is rigged.

So, essentially, we should replace biologists who believe in evolution with Young Earth Creationists, and see if they come to the same conclusion.

I would place more credence in non-Christian historical investigation of Christ, much as I'd be more likely to trust a Christian historian over a Muslim historian in testing the historicity of Mohammad.

Yes, I'm sure a scholarly panel of New Atheists could not possibly hold any deep seeded bias against Christianity.

How bout this. How bout historians of all backgrounds do what they're supposed to do; Do what they usually do; and attempt objectivity as best they can, and then have their work peer reviewed to check for bias.

I haven't done this sort of survey, so you may be right.

This sort of survey was done 10 years ago. http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_3-2_2005.htm

Not a lot has changed. As far as I know, there's like 3 scholars of ancient history who strongly favor the mythicist view. And at that, they're either not academically employed, not specialists in NT studies specifically, and one of them at least, Carrier, has openly expressed his disdain for Christianity and vowed to fight it by publishing as much as he could to help others like himself to "defeat [its] nonsense and lies".

But Ehrman is an interesting case, so you might be interested in this book review:

http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

yes, I'm well aware of Ehrman's irritation at the mythicist movement. He wrote that book because online skeptics kept thinking that because he was critical of the NT that he would naturally be a mythicist, which, to him, was complete and utter nonsense. NT scholar, and non-theist Maurice Casey also wrote a book slamming the movement. Most scholars ignore mythicism, because it was already dealt with back at the turn of the 20th century. They have better things to do with their time.

That book review linked just above has a nice diagram that saves a thousand words. Basically, it says that ultimately all the tales of Jesus derive from Paul.

That's not at all what that says. Paul (and perhaps Q) may be the earliest sources, they may even be some of the best sources, but they're far from the only sources.

1) Measurement techniques are not historical reconstruction techniques.
2) Nonetheless, outside of those who deal directly with the measurements, opinion is politically driven and not scientifically driven.
3) The political aspect of global warming is largly divorced from the scientific aspect.

Yeah, this is a rabbit trail I have no interest in.

[KingsGambit]

This *really* surprises me.

The US Senate voted on an amendment on whether climate change was real as opposed to a hoax. It passed, 98-1. Even James Inhofe voted "yes".

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...-real-not-hoax

[Leonhard]

This *really* surprises me.

The US Senate voted on an amendment on whether climate change was real as opposed to a hoax. It passed, 98-1. Even James Inhofe voted "yes".

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...-real-not-hoax

Its definitely not a hoax, there's no reason to vote on it. Though I guess politicians have to vote to figure out what they mean.

[Juvenal]

Your petition project is of scientists in general rather than experts in the field.

It's much worse than that, pman. Check the qualifications page.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

Anyone calling this a list of 30,000 scientists is slow-witted, fraudulent, or a raving loon like Mountain Man, currently posting in the interstitial periods between his serial bannings for being a raving loon.

Consider this before you respond to this doof again. I once saw him push an argument for the historical bona fides of Jesus by ... literally ... and I mean literally in its most precise sense ... ignoring a mountain of evidence in favor of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Yeah, that.

The most epic face plant in all of TWeb history.

[KingsGambit]

Using the logic of that list, I could portray myself as an expert in the field of education because I have a BS in Secondary Education (which I haven't ended up using). A bachelor's degree does not a scientist make.

[Paprika]

Why is this article wrong?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Your petition project The survey is of scientists in general rather than experts in the field. It reminds me of the 'Steve' petition.

See, it's not that hard.

[pancreasman]

See, it's not that hard.

Welcome back. I hope you're rested and feeling fine.

[pancreasman]

It's much worse than that, pman. Check the qualifications page.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

Anyone calling this a list of 30,000 scientists is slow-witted, fraudulent, or a raving loon like Mountain Man, currently posting in the interstitial periods between his serial bannings for being a raving loon.

Consider this before you respond to this doof again. I once saw him push an argument for the historical bona fides of Jesus by ... literally ... and I mean literally in its most precise sense ... ignoring a mountain of evidence in favor of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Yeah, that.

The most epic face plant in all of TWeb history.

Yes, I do get this. I do struggle a bit with the 'respond to outrageous lunacy' versus the 'ignore provocative extremists' polarity. If I had my time over again I probably would not have started this thread or the one about liberalism as a mental disorder. Nevertheless, aside from the usual gang, I appreciate the good contributions from everybody else.

[Mountain Man]

It's much worse than that, pman. Check the qualifications page.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

Anyone calling this a list of 30,000 scientists is slow-witted, fraudulent, or a raving loon like Mountain Man, currently posting in the interstitial periods between his serial bannings for being a raving loon.

Consider this before you respond to this doof again. I once saw him push an argument for the historical bona fides of Jesus by ... literally ... and I mean literally in its most precise sense ... ignoring a mountain of evidence in favor of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Yeah, that.

The most epic face plant in all of TWeb history.

These are bald-faced lies. Yes, lao tzu, I am calling you out as a liar.

First of all, I have never been banned from tWeb. I sometimes stop posting for extended periods, but this is by choice and not because I've been banned.

Secondly, I never denied the evidence in favor of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Never. Since the old tWeb is not around any more, I can't link to the thread, but my argument was specifically about eyewitness documentation. The common objection from morons like you is that something as spectacular as a man rising from the dead should have been reported in writing by dozens of eyewitnesses instead of the mere handful of men who wrote the gospels. My response to this is to point out that the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which was a major cataclysm in the ancient world, has but a single eyewitness account composed some 30-years after the event.

[Mountain Man]

Using the logic of that list, I could portray myself as an expert in the field of education because I have a BS in Secondary Education (which I haven't ended up using). A bachelor's degree does not a scientist make.

lao tzu is being dishonest. He quoted this part fine:

Source: PetitionProject.org

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

© Copyright Original Source

But he stopped short of quoting the next two paragraphs (gee, I wonder why ):

Source: PetitionProject.org

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis mine)

[seer]

Based on your religious perspective I do not think you accept this in a world billions of years old, without a world flood, nor that change can be predicted and measured in modern science, and yes as predicted sea levels are rising and glaciers are retreating as predicted.

Listen Homer, you have no idea what I believe about the age of the earth. And my point was that the earth has cooled and heated long before man was around.