Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 8, 2006
By: Christina Larson

GOD AND CLIMATE.... A week after the National Association of Evangelicals announced that it would not take a stance on global warming, a group known as the Evangelical Climate Initiative this morning released of a statement signed by 86 evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren, author of the The Purpose-Driven Life; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; and Leith Anderson, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Heres an abbreviated version:

Claim 1: Human-induced climate change is real.

Claim 2: The consequences of climate change will be significant, and will hit the poor the hardest.

Claim 3: Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem.

Claim 4: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change starting now.

It would be inaccurate for environmentalists to claim that the evangelical community is either with us or against us. Many prominent leaders are not on board. Focus on the Familys James Dobson, for instance, earlier urged the NAE to not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change....Global warming is not a consensus issue.

Still, in the coming weeks, print, radio and TV ads aimed at evangelicals (and a few targeted members of Congress) will run in The New York Times, Christianity Today, Roll Call, FOX News, CNN, ABC Family, and elsewhere. The print ads feature a photo of earth from space, the headline Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis, and a partial list of religious leaders whove signed the statement.

At a press conference this morning in Washington, a half dozen evangelical leaders talked about why they had decided to support this campaign. One undercurrent of the discussion was the belief, among some religious leaders, that the faith community had in recent decades retreated from its historical role advocating for positive government action, except on limited and often divisive issues. Dr. Duane Litfin, president of evangelical Wheaton College, said it was a mistake for religious leaders to shy away from public initiatives on issues such as global warming because of a perception that thats what liberals do.

Christina Larson 7:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (113)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Color me impressed. A nice, tiny step.

Posted by: Grotesqueticle on February 8, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

It would be inaccurate for environmentalists to claim that the evangelical community is either with us or against us. Many prominent leaders are not on board. Focus on the Familys James Dobson, for instance, earlier urged the NAE to not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change Global warming is not a consensus issue.

Fine. This group can have all the current coastal real estate, but only if they promise to stay there, come hell or high water. Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: Jeff II on February 8, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

This was also covered by Razib at ScienceBlogs.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 8, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry to go off message, but if true, I find it quite suprising.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38858.html

Apparently, a VA nurse, which makes her a federal employee,had her work computer seized as part of an investigation for "sedition" launched after she wrote a letter to the local paper critical of the administration's handling of events after Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq occupation.


Posted by: kostya on February 8, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

So Kevin, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues as long as their position is one with which you agree?

Posted by: am on February 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

You seem so happy to be supported by the American Taliban.

Posted by: Al on February 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the opinions of religious leaders on an issue such as global warming is considered to be pertinent politically speaks volumes to a way in which the States differs dramatically from Canada, Europe, East Asia. Though such attention is paid in Iran...

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 8, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK
So Kevin, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues as long as their position is one with which you agree?

Are you trying to compare this to the political appointee lecturing the scientific staff at NASA on the Big Bang?

People who aren't scientists will naturally have -- and should be free to express -- opinions on public policy issues that relate to scientific questions. People who don't understand the language of science shouldn't be directing scientists in public service how to use that language.

See the difference?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 8, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

You seem so happy to be supported by the American Taliban.

The broad evangelical movement is not the same as the political movement that seeks to impose a particular view of Christianity through the power of the state that is characterized as the "American Taliban" though the latter is largely composed of certain elements of the former.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 8, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

am @ 8.04, once again

look before you sneer (I mean, if you pay your own sneers so little regard why should anyone else bother to deem them worthy)

christina does not = kevin

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 8, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

"So Kevin, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues as long as their position is one with which you agree?"

I'm not Kevin, but I'm sure that he's not so much grateful for their support as relieved that some evangelicals are limited in their capacity for politically-motivated self delusion.

Posted by: Tom Marney on February 8, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Their first step should be to purge their ranks of the Dobsons and Robertsons of the world.

Declare them to be the lunatic-fringe of Christianity. Disown them. If we can demand this of the Muslims, then we can certainly expect this of the Christians.

Until mainstream Christianity divests themselves of the whack-jobs, they'll never be taken seriously on any issue besides those that are attached to large numbers of dollars headed for politicians' pockets.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

So Kevin, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues as long as their position is one with which you agree?
Posted by: am on February 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

No, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues, as long as their position is one which agrees with the conclusions arrived at by those who follow the Scientific Method.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

See the difference?

no, he doesn't. He doesn't even realize that Kevin didn't write this post even though the author's name is printed quite clearly at the top.

In short, he's a blithering idiot unworthly of a response.

Posted by: haha on February 8, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the opinions of religious leaders on an issue such as global warming is considered to be pertinent politically speaks volumes to a way in which the States differs dramatically from Canada, Europe, East Asia. . . . Posted by: snicker-snack

Sad but true, though you really need to throw Italy, Greece, and Poland in with the U.S.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 8, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the opinions of religious leaders on an issue such as global warming is considered to be pertinent politically speaks volumes to a way in which the States differs dramatically from Canada, Europe, East Asia. . . . Posted by: snicker-snack

The fact that the official policy of the US government on an issue such as gay rights is considered to be pertinent, politically, speaks volumes to the way in which the US is in agreement with Iran.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

"it was a mistake for religious leaders [to] shy away from public initiatives on issues such as global warming because of a perception that thats what liberals do. "

We've got to get a better grip on why they feel like they can't do "what liberals do."

Posted by: Neil' on February 8, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

We've got to get a better grip on why they feel like they can't do "what liberals do." Posted by: Neil'

Why? They're the people with the problems. We don't need to pander and degrade the party for the sake of votes the way the Republicans do. No matter how you slice it, they aren't that big a part of the electorate anyway.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 8, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

We've got to get a better grip on why they feel like they can't do "what liberals do."
Posted by: Neil' on February 8, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think most of us have a pretty good grip on the concept:

(Authoritarian Streak)+(Whack-job Authorities)=(irrational fear of liberal ideas, being perceived of as liberal, being associated in any way with liberalism. . . for fear of being suspected gay.)

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

So Kevin, it's OK for non-scientists to get involved in scientific issues as long as their position is one with which you agree?

It's not a scientific issue, it's a moral issue. It's not as if these evangelicals are reading the raw data and drawing conclusions from it. They are recognizing that, even if the issue isn't completely resolved, we know there is a significant risk that the threat is real, and to impose the burden of that risk on future generations so that we can continue to maintain our care-free lifestyle is just plain selfish.

Posted by: Beale on February 8, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

They are recognizing that, even if the issue isn't completely resolved, we know there is a significant risk that the threat is real, and to impose the burden of that risk on future generations so that we can continue to maintain our care-free lifestyle is just plain selfish. Posted by: Beale

Robertson, Falwell and Dobson don't care. They're all ready to meet their maker.

(Too bad you can't get idiots like them to become suicide bombers.)

Posted by: Jeff II on February 8, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

I always hoped that American Christianity would rediscover Christ and advocate Christian values in the public sphere. I always loved the Bible; I find it deeply disturbing that the political face of Christianity in America today is so devoted to gays and abortion.

Posted by: Saam Barrager on February 8, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Robertson, Falwell and Dobson don't care. They're all ready to meet their maker.

They are all in for a big surprise.

Posted by: Beale on February 8, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Robertson, Falwell and Dobson don't care. They're all ready to meet their maker.
(Too bad you can't get idiots like them to become suicide bombers.)
Posted by: Jeff II on February 8, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect that's because these individuals, deep down, are not Christians, but rather, are hedonist/atheists, who are milking the religion for their own selfish ends.

Or, they're quite possibly willing agents of Satan.

I always hoped that American Christianity would rediscover Christ and advocate Christian values in the public sphere. I always loved the Bible; ...
Posted by: Saam Barrager on February 8, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm certain that the Bible is the problem. As long as the Old Testament is taught as the inerrant Word of God, instead of as a semi-relevant historical/cultural backgrounder to provide context for the New Testament (and the writings of Paul rightly discredited as false teachings by an anti-Christian agent), Christianity's followers will most likely never understand the meaning of their own religion.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Check out this site at stanford University. It graphs solar activity vs global temp over that last 100 years. Almost a perfect correlation between the temp rise and the sun's activity.

Posted by: Matt on February 8, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Does this mean that eternal life in heaven does not have to conflict with eternal life on earth? That many, many more generations to come might have some say in how the present generation lives? That the current inhabitants should not live like they are the last generation to inhabit planet earth? That we were not chosen to determine the fate of the planet or that the earth was not created for man? Whatever, their show of support for the earth is most welcomed.

Posted by: lou on February 8, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda cold winter for a warmer globe...
Posted by: McAristotle on February 8, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Warmest January since temperatures were first measured. Ignorant fuck.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002791295_warm08.html

Lucky for Bush, since heating oil and natural gas prices are also very high - had we had a colder winter, tens of thousands Americans might have died due to supply shortages, thanks to companies who have had their most profitable quarters on record, yet are mysteriously, not investing in expanding capacity.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

The sad part is that many people would actively deny the reality of global warming were it not for the statements of these evangelical leaders.

Posted by: Constantine on February 8, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Next we'll hear that the Intelligent Design folks are against destroying works of art like the snail darter, San Juaquin fairy shrimp, and San Bernadino flower loving fly. Or maybe not. Noah is so old testament.

Is the IRS looking into this example of anti-Bush speech?

Posted by: B on February 8, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Check out this site at stanford University. It graphs solar activity vs global temp over that last 100 years. Almost a perfect correlation between the temp rise and the sun's activity.

Matt:

If you look at figure 3 of this paper you can see that in fact the great relation that you seem to think is significant is actually caused by errors in the calculation of solar cycle length.

What the corrected graph shows that solar activity has not been a factor for the last 30 years but temperatures are increasing. Chalk up another one for global warming (opps, I mean the theory of global warming).

Kinda cold winter for a warmer globe

McAristotle:

In fact, no, it hasn't been. In fact it has been the warmest January in the US ever recorded and globally, it is a tie for the 4th warmest January ever. References provided upon request.

Yelling.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 8, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Way back in 1979 Jeremy Rifkin said in his book, The Emerging Order: God in the Age of Scarcity that the Evangelicals were going to get behind envonmentalism.

Posted by: Les Brunswick on February 8, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

"warmest winter"

Well, here in Portland, OR, the temperature has not been below the middle 30s - Have not had a freeze - Mostly in the 40s at night - We are having a "la nina" effect - great deal of snow in the Cascades - Recent rain event of over 40 days - most rain for January in over 25 years. Usually start my major pruning the end of February, but with the warm winter, may be behind - lot of budding going on - Spring bulbs are starting to sprout - crocus out already.

But keep us "informed" McAnus.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 8, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

God bless the evangelicals that aren't knee jerk apologists for politicians. You have to have some respect for people that think for themselves and appreciate modern science.

Posted by: asdf on February 8, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Michigan just had it's warmest January on record as well. Lots and lots of rainy, mild days when it's usually freakin' freezing and the wind chill often well below 0 F.

One of the scenarios suggested as a result of climate change in the northern U.S. is warmer winters punctuated by strong storms that result from the atypical collision of warm, wet air from the south and frigid air from the north. That scenario happened in our area on Sunday, with a front collision producing a fast eight inches of wet snow so heavy that it brought down trees and power lines all over our area.

That happens here, but it is more typical of late March or early April when it's getting warmer.

At least the evangelicals are on the case, we can use all the help we can get!

Posted by: Windhorse on February 8, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Its a moral issue if its real but the global warming stuff is a mix of myth and science.

Its good to see McAristotle is as ignorant of science as he is of US politics.

If only he were that ignorant of the internet, he wouldn't be able to find his way here to post.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 8, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Sssshhhh....

Humour McA.

See, there he is, over there snickering, waiting for us all to sail over the edge of the world...

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

I had heard that Rick Warren was conspicuously ABSENT from this letter. Is that not the case?

Posted by: Amur on February 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK
I always loved the Bible; I find it deeply disturbing that the political face of Christianity in America today is so devoted to gays and abortion.

That's not so much the political face of Christianity as the face of political Christianity -- that is, the face of the elite that uses Christianity as a cudgel to get the masses in line behind a political position. There are lots of Christians who take political stances for reasons which have a nexus with their religious values, but don't drown everyone around in the kind of divisive, judgemental rhetoric as the Christian Right.

Many of these are the Christians that, whatever their sect, take the Biblical injunctions against judgementalism and vengeance seriously, and see their mission as building bridges to help people to work toward the common good of all, rather than judging and executing vengeance in God's stead.


Posted by: cmdicely on February 8, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

floop,

I'm sure you're aware of this story, but others here may be interested to know that Sydney needs to more than halve its water consumption to prevent a dire water shortage in 25 years.

Time to switch to sponge baths!

Posted by: Windhorse on February 8, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34576/story.htm

Maybe I'm more global than you Yanks. Screw Portland and Michigan. Coldest Russian winter ever and China is cold too.

Christians who get behind the global warming movement will be like Christians who got behind liberation theology - profoundly embarassed by a dismal science proving to be a myth, just like Marxian economics.

Posted by: McA on February 8, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse - yeah, I was born and grew up in Adelaide. Capital of the driest state on the driest continent - water controls have been a way of life there pretty much since the city was founded.

Actually, whilst the urban concentration of Sydney causes this immense problem, and we are one of the most urbanised countries on the planet, the vast majority of the water consumed in this country is actually used in agriculture. That's the great unspoken issue - for chrissakes we grow rice in Australia. One of the thirstiest crops in the world.

Irrigation is why our greatest river, the Murray, is silting over at its mouth. We draw off megalitres to grow rice and sugar, so we can insanely attempt to compete with the Thai and Vietnamese rice industries. We should be farming kangaroo meat, of course, and getting rid of the water guzzling beef industry.

So is it the fault of the cities? You'd be surprised how many people are aware of this issue here - hell, the tourist town where I spent New years Eve came within a kilometre of being destroyed in the wave of bushfires during our hot spell (yep - hottest NYE since records began, McA).

People here are very aware of it - I'm guessing you wouldn't see too many toilets in the US with a full flush/half flush button (although I could be wrong...) or water saving shower heads are pretty much standard issue. I'd defy you to wash your car with a hose in the street in any suburb in Australia without being abused - or reported. Of course Sydney, with 4 million people, uses a huge amount of water - but urban Australians do not use a lot per person necessarily.

Get rid of wasteful agricultural crops and practices and it would make a huge difference - but then these farming communities are in marginal seats, so...

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm more global than you Yanks.

Um, no you're not. Don't you read the Malaysia Star?

NASA: 2005 was warmest year on record.

Thanks for playing though.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 8, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Christians who get behind the global warming movement will be like Christians who got behind liberation theology...

What, running a number of South American countries these days?

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

McA, you're not a Christian. You do realise that, don't you?

You're a Pharisee.

You guys don't do so well in the New Testament.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBJ3LOH.html

And it was a record cold in December for the US....but Greenie's can't see it...

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

We should be farming kangaroo meat, of course, and getting rid of the water guzzling beef industry.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah. Huge market for prime t-bone Skippy in Asia.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060206/sc_afp/polandweathercoldtoll_060206172833

233 people dead of Poland's coldest winter ever

Posted by: McA on February 8, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda cold winter for a warmer globe...

I just can't help but giggling myself silly when people unabashedly display their ignorance on global climate issues.

Go spend some time at RealClimate.org and learn something for a change.


Posted by: Simp on February 8, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

So windhorse displays statistics showing last year the world as a whole was the warmest on record.

McA disputes this by displaying a story that one country, Poland, has had the coldest winter in 20 years.

So?

Posted by: floopmeister on February 8, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

And it was a record cold in December for the US....but Greenie's can't see it...

You didn't even read the article you linked to. Some places had record cold, the entire country did not -- and the entire year was the warmest ever!

Global climate change theorists don't say the upshot of all this is that we'll all be sipping margaritas by the pool in our speedos. Rather, as the earth warms overall the climate will become "unhinged" with wild regional variations: some colder, most warmer.

I know that challenges your Newtonian understanding of the world.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 8, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II:

Rather Pope Benedict than James Dobson.

The Catholics have been good in recent years on keeping the boundaries clear between science and faith. No Vatican voices chiming in with amicus briefs on behalf of the Thomas More Institute in Dover :)

One political element here that's important: The more literalist fundevangelicals (and probably exclusively fundamentalist) read the stewardship of the earth command in Genesis to mean that the earth was created for man to use as he (yes, that's genedered, alright) sees fit. Certainly this is the view of Dominionists (it's right there in the name), but also likely the view of the Southern Baptists as well.

So reading the stewardship command to mean caring for earth because it's the home for all these other creatures, and man isn't necessarily the center of all creation (a fundamental tenet of ecology) is deeply unscriptural and namby-pamby relativist, to boot.

This is why the Dobsonites are doctrinally opposed to environmentalism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 8, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Christina Larson >"...The print ads feature a photo of earth from space, the headline Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis,..."

YES !!!

"Once a photograph of Earth, taken from outside, is available, once the sheer isolation of the Earth becomes plain, a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose" - Fred Hoyle (1948)

Posted by: daCascadian on February 8, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Do y'all think McA is, you know, certifiably insane? This is a serious question.

Posted by: shortstop on February 8, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, whilst the urban concentration of Sydney causes this immense problem, and we are one of the most urbanised countries on the planet, the vast majority of the water consumed in this country is actually used in agriculture.

Thanks for the detailed and informative explanation, I had no idea that aussies were such big rice farmers. I understand growers in many countries areas are beginning to experiment with drip irrigation to conserve water usage, and it's making a big difference especially among farmers in poorer, drier nations.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 8, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34576/story.htm

Maybe I'm more global than you Yanks. Screw Portland and Michigan. Coldest Russian winter ever and China is cold too.

Christians who get behind the global warming movement will be like Christians who got behind liberation theology - profoundly embarassed by a dismal science proving to be a myth, just like Marxian economics.

First, as has been pointed out the article says the coldest winter in 26 years, not ever.

However if you wish to play in the area of science, I would challenge you to present somethng to back up your claim of "dismal science proving to be a myth".

Y.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 8, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:14 PM:

Their first step should be to purge their ranks of the Dobsons and Robertsons of the world.

Agreed, especially when they put out stuff like this:

Focus on the Family Concerned by Global Warming Theory
Care for families paramount for ministry
Colorado Springs, Colo. Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery issued the following statement today in response to a report that the National Association of Evangelicals actively supports efforts to curb global warming, an environmental theory yet to be adequately substantiated:
Focus on the Familys overriding interest is the protection and nurture of the family here in America and around the world. Along those lines, Focus and the broader evangelical movement have viewed such issues as the protection of marriage, the sanctity of human life, and the related issue of judicial reform as paramount."
Our friends at the National Association of Evangelicals, with whom we agree on these and so many other issues, have now staked out a position in the very controversial area of global warming. This is despite the fact that significant disagreement exists within the scientific community regarding the validity of this theory."
Our concern with global warmings more radical proponents is the way in which they have attempted to manipulate this issue to stifle advances in numerous fields advances that would benefit the lives of people the world over, including many of its poorest citizens. Any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support.

For those with a higher bandwidth, see the Evangelical Environmentalists report, accessible from NBC Nightly News video section:

"Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery says Evangelicals should be focused on sanctity of life issues, not global warming."

Shorter Focus on the Family: 'Fags and Abortion...stay Focused, people!'

Posted by: grape_crush on February 9, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

"This is despite the fact that significant disagreement exists within the scientific community regarding the validity of this theory."

Sometimes these people don't even pretend to try to get things right. Let me state clearly, there is no significant disagreement regarding the validity of this theory.

While science does not work by consensus, consensus acts to support science (a thousand scientists who see how their little area of expertise supports the larger picture is stronger than a single voice). The Oreskes paper was a good look at this:

Click the link - always click the link

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 9, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK
Christians who get behind the global warming movement will be like Christians who got behind liberation theology - profoundly embarassed by a dismal science proving to be a myth, just like Marxian economics.

Well, other than questioning your interpretation of the fate of liberation theology (except for the most radical Marxist elements that went under that banner, after all, most of the central holdings of the movement were affirmed as proper Catholic social teachings, and remain part of the teaching of the Church to this day; its the radical fringe of liberation theology, rather than the whole movement, that was rejected), your words (though not how you meant them!) are essentially correct: those Christians who get behind the movement advancing global warming (the Dominionists of the American Christian Right, for instance) rather than fighting it will be seen as supporters of a myth rejected by science, morality, and human experience, just like the most extreme Marxist statists.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 9, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

"Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery says Evangelicals should be focused on sanctity of life issues, not global warming."

Yeah, because manmade environmental catastrophes with potential death tolls in the uncountable millions certainly aren't sanctity of life issues.

Idiots.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 9, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Here in Calgary: one cold week, early Dec. Since then, daytime temps hovering around 0 or above with occasional chinook days going up into the teens (all temps. celsius) Ground almost completely clear of snow.

In northern Alberta: many winter roads closed early due to lack of freezing. Communities isolated, logging and oil exploration halted.

Edmonton, Saskatoon, Sudbury, Regina, Toronto, Windsor, Halifax, Winnipeg: warmest January on record. Long-range forecasts predict "toasty" Feb. as well. (According to cbc.ca)

Posted by: caribou on February 9, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Do y'all think McA is, you know, certifiably insane? This is a serious question.
Posted by: shortstop on February 8, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

No, not insane. Just one of my cherished acolytes.

Posted by: Mammon on February 9, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney Increased availability of air conditioning : funny ! A.C. becomes rapidly more inefficient as temperatures rise, also.

Posted by: opit on February 9, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK
Of course, manmade environmental catastrophes with HUMAN death tolls in the uncountable millions certainly are sanctity of life issues - if global warming exists, there are things we can do, for instance "Health impacts . . . can be ameliorated through such measures as the increased availability of air conditioning."

Which, you know, radically increases demand for electricity and, all things being equal, fossil fuels -- which makes the problem worse.

Not, of course, that air conditioning will do much to reduce the impact of more extreme weather events -- cranking the A/C doesn't to much to mitigate the harm from more frequent Cat 5 hurricanes.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 9, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney's a "sanctity of life" guy, opit. He gives global warming only enough attention so as to make lame, dismissive jokes.

Theoretical unborn humans: big issue. Plants and animals: they're only here for our exploitation. That's Cheney.

Posted by: snowy s.o.b. on February 9, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney:

And so are Women.

To serve Man's needs, of course.

The dog's at the vet. I think somebody needs to fetch your pipe 'n' slippers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 9, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Grapey:

I think we need a clever catchphrase for it.

How about ... fagbortion? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 9, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney:

Nice dodge.

So ... who's fetching your pipe 'n' slippers tonite? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 9, 2006 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

It may be cheaper to adapt to global warming than to try to prevent it. So far people seem, on balance, to enjoy milder winters. But if the glaciers melt and sea level rises 20 feet and the gulf stream stops and leaves northern Europe as cold as the shores of Hudson's Bay, we might be looking at relocating half the world's population.

Posted by: duvidil on February 9, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support.

Even if the lack of "support" leads to floods, wildfires, species loss, crop failure, etc.?

Are you"right-thinking evangelicals" really that obtuse?

Posted by: snowy s.o.b. on February 9, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK
It may be cheaper to adapt to global warming than to try to prevent it. So far people seem, on balance, to enjoy milder winters. But if the glaciers melt and sea level rises 20 feet and the gulf stream stops and leaves northern Europe as cold as the shores of Hudson's Bay, we might be looking at relocating half the world's population.

What makes you think the people that live outside of the part of the Earth north of the tropics will let the rest of us relocate?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 9, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

I'm certain that the Bible is the problem. As long as the Old Testament is taught as the inerrant Word of God, instead of as a semi-relevant historical/cultural backgrounder to provide context for the New Testament (and the writings of Paul rightly discredited as false teachings by an anti-Christian agent), Christianity's followers will most likely never understand the meaning of their own religion.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Osama, I had no idea you were a kindred spirit -- ---of sorts -- (If memory serves, you are athiest...I am thechnically not, but at least you 'get' the cultural and ..political infusions of the New Testament epistles from Paul. Not to mention the fourth centrury edits of the gospels....oh this is a whole new thread!)


With that as a springboard, it's nice to see that there is a possibility that American Evangelicals might acknowledge global warming as a life threatening issue, but as long as the extreme right wing is in the driver's seat, real Christians are going to have a hard time explaining to Jesus or St Peter at the pearly gates what they did to mitigate the evidence of earth's diminishing capabilities to support 'a culture of life' while the chance was there. After all, isn't mankind supposed to provide the responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources?

How does one expalain to God that it was not politicaly expedient to tend to the earth, as long as fags might have a chance to have domestic stability?

Posted by: jcricket on February 9, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

you won't mind if I slit my wrists just yet - at least we've been "cooling" ever since 1995 ; )
Posted by: Cheney on February 9, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

No. Really I don' mind. Knock yourself out. Literally.

Posted by: jcricket on February 9, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

Tending to the Earth is cool. However, we need to be reasonably convinced the costs of global warming fixes are worth it given their chance of success.

More 'Kyoto' just hurts poor people.

Posted by: McA on February 9, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

Bob,

Cheney's favorite song is "Put Another Log On The Fire".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 9, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

That explains it ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 9, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

One of the scenarios suggested as a result of climate change in the northern U.S. is warmer winters punctuated by strong storms that result from the atypical collision of warm, wet air from the south and frigid air from the north.


I can testify to that. Here in central Illinois, not only have we had a really warm winter we also had very powerful thunderstorms last week. Vicious winds, hail, and quite a lot of rain and very loud thunder that's more typical of July than February.

I can't remember a February that had thunderstorms in it!

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 9, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

To "take a stand" on global warming implies, of course, that humans can do something about it. The absurdity of this will be revealed again as time passes and the climate naturally cools again just as it always has during minor natural fluctuations.

Most climate fluctuations are minor. The next "big one" to come along will undoubtedly be an ice age and there is no reason to be impatient for that.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on February 9, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Lordy, Lordy...you mean Robertson and Dobson DON'T speak for ALL evangelicals (wink, wink)??? They just get the most press from the paid for right wing pundit commentators in our MSM. So what's new?

Posted by: Dancer on February 9, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

The reports of the Sun's effect on this warming phenomena has been restated as late as 2005 by Columbia and Duke scientist, who claim some 15 to 40% of the global warming has been solar related.

Remember, the martian ice caps are melting also.

So, have the global warming freaks put this into their model? Dunno.

But, remember, we are asking why less CO2 is being returned to land, it is remaining in the air. This is a source/sink problem, and given that humans emit a fraction of the CO2 relative to other sources, the global warming freaks have to explain why such a large carbon cycle was so delicately balanced that just the extra source from humans put it out of whack.

If you take the solar component, at around 30%, and put it in the model. Include the effect of the extra solar energy on the carbon cycle and see what happens. The extra solar energy may in itself explain why the carbon cycle is changing. In other words, more sun, different carbon cycle; and that may be the cause.

If the sun is hotter, than so is the ocean, and the ocean is less capable of sinking carbon. More sun, less cloud cover and the biomass sources more carbon.


Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Christianity's followers will most likely never understand the meaning of their own religion.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten

That's as may be. At any rate, you don't.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 9, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

I see there is the usual abundance of ignorant know-nothings claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a worldwide conspiracy to destroy capitalism, or whatever.

Folks like Matt and Cheney and McA and Michael L. Cook should familiarize themselves with the website www.realclimate.org. Then, before posting their fossil-fuel-industry generated propaganda talking points here, they should research them on that site. In the unlikely event they find they've got one that has not already been thoroughly debunked on RealClimate, then they can post it here. It would save a lot of time.

Michael L. Cook wrote: The absurdity of this will be revealed again as time passes and the climate naturally cools again just as it always has during minor natural fluctuations.

Regardless of whether you believe that the currently observed warming is athropogenic or not, it is most certainly not a "minor fluctuation." The Earth is now warming fifty times faster than it did at the end of the last ice age, and the warming then caused glaciers a mile thick over what is now New York to completely vanish within decades -- which is to say, within the span of a human lifetime.

Any humans who survive the catastrophic climatic and ecological upheaval of the 21st century will find themselves living on an entirely different planet from the one on which human civilization developed and prospered over the last 10,000 years. It is very doubtful that anything resembling what we think of as modern technologically advanced civilization will survive into the 22nd century.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

"The next big one to come along will undoubtedly be an ice age.."

Oh goody, Brigham in Seattle can wear his cowboy chaps, cowboy hat and Felson duster and stroll through Volunteer Park once again. More people will be concerned with the Ice than Brokeback Mountain.

And David Horsey is a WHINER.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 9, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Folks like Matt..."

Secular animist, I do the technical reviews. Global warming freaks claimed the Sun had little to do, I reviewed the papers, listened to their criticism, and discovered that indeed the global warmers do agree that solar activity is significant.

I say, so what happens to the carbon cycle? Lo and behold, I discover that current climate models to not have a grasp of the carbon cycle. Now, Fung at Berkely is trying to answer that and incorporate it into the model.

You are the reactionary here, not me. The more I uncover the more I see that anti-big oil is the agenda of global warming freaks. Scientists are just now trying to get a handle on the carbon cycle, just now trying to understand it and model it.


Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Oh goody, Brigham in Seattle can wear his cowboy chaps, cowboy hat and Felson duster and stroll through Volunteer Park once again. More people will be concerned with the Ice than Brokeback Mountain.
thethirdPaul

Will he be hanging out down by the tennis courts or loitering near the water tower?

Posted by: Jeff II on February 9, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Matt wrote: I discover that current climate models to not have a grasp of the carbon cycle.

What rubbish. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are a blithering idiot and a complete ignoramous.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

From:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml

All of today's climate models are able to incorporate the climate effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but only with concentrations of CO2 specified by the modelers"

Read the report. As of Aug, 2005, none of the computer climate models included any dynamics on the carbopn cycle.

Secular Animist, you are the idiot, and you clearly have a bias that affects your objectivity. The carbon cycle is very sensitive to temperature, yet its dynamics are ignored?

Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Read the report. As of Aug, 2005, none of the computer climate models included any dynamics on the carbopn cycle. Posted by: Matt

It's you that does not understand the most basic fact of global warming. The carbon cycle is "broken," that's why we've got global warming. We are producing/releasing far more carbon than the earth is able to absorb, at any temperature. Increased solar activity has nothing to do with this.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 9, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

"http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Check out this site at stanford University. It graphs solar activity vs global temp over that last 100 years. Almost a perfect correlation between the temp rise and the sun's activity."

Well, no problems citing figure from a 15-year old paper, 'cos, like, nobody's done any work in the field since then, right?

Errors in the figure pointed out in this article in Eos:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/eos_sun_climate.pdf
Let's look at a more recent paper on the topic, from in 2002:

"The suggestion of a link between variations in solar irradiance and low cloud cover is of interest for the understandin gof past climate variation, since it may indicate a reinforcement of the solar signal by the climate system, i.e., a postive feedback. However, we do not feel that it is of significance for the present global warming, since solar irradiance does not appear to have increase over the last 50 years."

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/kkk_asr.pdf

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 9, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Matt wrote:

"Secular animist, I do the technical reviews."

Then you'd be familiar with the Stanford U. Jasper Ridge experiments, which showed that increased CO2 + increased temperature + increased nitrate levels led to less CO2 uptake, not more, 'cos of increased plant pathogen activity Not to mention the potential effects of thawing of permafrost in terms of methane and CO2 emissions.

You also failed to quote the following in the article you cited at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml: "If current production of carbon from fossil fuels continues unabated, by the end of the century the land and oceans will be less able to take up carbon than they are today, the model indicates."

I'll take your failure to quote the main finding from the LBL research indicates your overall level of intellectual honesty.

You seem to have an inbuilt assumption that changes to temperature on the carbon cycle will have a negative feedback effect on climate change. Please note that this is a faith-based assumption on your part, and contradicted by both Stanford and Berkeley research.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 9, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: In your readings you must have come across this then.

I would say that there are several models that use dynamic vegetation.

Your research seems to consist of cherry picking and ignoring when someone pokes holes in your references. If science was only that simple.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 9, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Urinated State of America wrote to Matt: I'll take your failure to quote the main finding from the LBL research indicates your overall level of intellectual honesty.

The phrase "intellectual honesty" or "intellectual dishonesty" or any phrase containing the word "intellectual" for that matter is misplaced in reference to this fellow (well, perhaps "intellectual midget" would not be misplaced). He's an ignorant clown. He has no idea what he's talking about. He's just regurgitating scripted propaganda from the bought-and-paid-for oil company shill mouthpiece climate change deniers.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Fresno State, Victor Davis Hanson, and Matt - There must be a connection there somewhere.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 9, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

Don't know about the location, but those guys from the Discovery Institute are just naturally curious beasts. They've "evolved" into such animals.

Posted by: stupid git on February 9, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

This is turn about face is insane. These evangelicans are not coming to their senses. The world that we live in is coming to an end, period. Wars are raging all over the world. Weather is getting more unpredictable every year. New borne diseases are forming every second. Famine is widespread and increasing. We should actually hastened its end not prolong it, so that all those non born-again Christians can die. That's the reason I vote Bush for. He is for making Wars, not for conservation, peace, and harmony.

They are nuts, I tell you.

Posted by: Mini Al on February 9, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

Don't know about the location, but those guys from the Discovery Institute are just naturally curious beasts. They've "evolved" into such animals.
Posted by: stupid git

Don't get me started on that local embarrassment.

Paul to the third's local reference was to a park in Seattle on Capital Hill (AKA Fluff Bluff), home to much of Seattle's gay community. Volunteer Park is a notorius cruising spot.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 9, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"You [Matt] seem to have an inbuilt assumption that changes to temperature on the carbon cycle will have a negative feedback effect on climate change."

No, that is not exactly what I said, though I could speculate. What I said was the Fung, a Global Warming Freak, is the first to start to incorporate the carbon cycle into climate models, and this research is still very primitive.

What we know is that the carbon cycle is some 60 billion tons of CO2 per year, moving in and out. The human contribution to that is 6 billion tons (I hope I have my units right!)

If we take for granted the consensus among global warmists that solar activity accounts for 25%$ of this (the average estimate) then you have to incorporate this extra energy and its effect on the 60 billion ton carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle is obviously very temperature dependent, and some things we do know, but not enough.

"Jasper Ridge experiments, which showed that increased CO2 + increased temperature + increased nitrate levels led to less CO2 uptake, not more,"

This says that an increase in temperature increases CO2 in the atmoshpere (did I get that right?) , which on first glance I would agree with. So what? Like I say, this temp affect operates on the whole 60 billion ton cycle, not just on he human contribution.

Who is throwing the carbon cycle out of balance? Us, with our 10% of carbon emissions, or the Sun, responsible for 25% of the temp rise?

Dunno, since our climate models still model the carbon cycle very poorly.

Then you have to explain why he Martian ice caps are receding, receding almost like our own. Mars has little geo generated heat, its atmosphere is much simpler than ours. The simplest explanation is solar activity.

Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

What started the Volunteer Park reference, were two posts by Michael L Cook of Seattle and the Discovery Institute about Brokeback Mountain. He, amusedly in his warped mind, said that he could no longer wear his cowboy hat and clothing because of the film. As he posted up thread about the ice age, thought I would skewer him once again.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 9, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, like I said: take your ignorant buffoonery over to www.RealClimate.org where you will find every single one of your so-called arguments thoroughly and soundly refuted.

As you know, they are not your own arguments, they are not the result of your laughable "research" that you have never done, they are talking points that you lift verbatim from the global warming denial propaganda (which is every bit as fake and phony as Holocaust denial propaganda) and then mechanically regurgitate. As such, they've been regurgitated already many times by other idiots like yourself, and have been repeatedly and completely shot down as the ignorant crap they are.

If you come up with something that hasn't already been debunked at RealClimate, then maybe you can sell it to Exxon-Mobil.

Meanwhile, there's no point wasting time debunking your fake, phony, scripted talking points that have already been debunked innumerable times.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno secular animist. Even a few months ago, NASA was still showing a strong increase in solar output, three papers alone in Science Magazine. These NASA scientists and their associates seem to agree.

The global warmists agree with me on the three central points. Solar activity is important, the carbon cycle must be accurately modeled. Global warmists also have one other opinion, with idiots like you arguing for Kyoto, it will never pass.

I did look at that site you pointed out, but I will have to dig into to it to see actual scientific work.

It appears that you are biased, uunscientific, and a general jackass; but I do not want to show any animosity here.

Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I dunno secular animist.

That's exactly right. That's the first correct thing you've posted all day. You dunno.

Specifically, you "dunno" what the hell you are talking about.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Matt:

Solar forcing is important - it is the primary source of energy for the earth - but in regards to it increasing if you look at the graph that I linked to earlier you will see that it can not and does not explain current rises in temperature. The papers you refer to (I believe that Solanki is one of them) show that the sun in responsible for at most 30% of the rise.

In regards to Mars, I think that is an argument that can be classified as amusing at best. There is little scientific evidence for it. If you look at solar output during the last 25 years, there is little to no increase.

I find it somewhat interesting that those who deny global warming argue that we don;t know enough about the climate on earth to be able to tell anything but are sure that solar increases are causing Mars to warm.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 9, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yelling in the fog wrote: I find it somewhat interesting that those who deny global warming argue that we don;t know enough about the climate on earth to be able to tell anything but are sure that solar increases are causing Mars to warm.

Increasingly, the only people who still deny the reality of global warming are ignorant, deluded tools like Matt, and they don't offer anything that rises to the level of "argument", they just regurgitate long-discredited, bogus, fake, phony right-wing talking points.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 9, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist:

In my experience the anthropogenic global warming deniers arguments fit into one of the following categories.

1) Global Warming is not happening
2) Global Warming is happening but we are not to blame
3) Global warming is happening and we are to blame but it will be good for us.
4) Global warming is happengin, it will be bad but we would be better spent building our economy because a good economy can adapt to anything.

My recent line of argument is "do you want to bet on it". It is amazing how many "skeptics" won't bet. James Annan has a list here.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 9, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Who is throwing the carbon cycle out of balance? Us, with our 10% of carbon emissions, or the Sun, responsible for 25% of the temp rise?"

Us. Isotopic analysis tell us so. We know the CO2 rise is because of , because of the decline is carbon-13/carbon-12 ratios.

Didn't you know this, O great demolisher of the climate change myth?

If you're going to blame the observed increase of CO2 concentrations since 1850 on increased solation, then you are truly, no doubt about it, detached from reality and playing in a holodeck of your very own.

To prevent, that, I suggest you read these:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 9, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I looked at the Telegraph review of Solanki's work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Dr. Jones comments:

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,"

Which is my point exactly, though Jones is a global warmist freak and I am not; but we both agree. The Sun cannot be taken in isolation of the uptake and emission of the global carbon cycle, and other cycles.

What the global warmists freaks fear is that the 30% effect of the Sun will be magnified by its effect on the carbon cycle.

Any temp rise, from whatever source, will effect the carbon cycle dramatically, I would think, since carbon reactions would be very sensitive to temp.

Remember, even if you take the position that the carbon cycle is in delicate balance, and we have upset that with our 10% increawse, then we have to explain why some of our carbon does get sequestered and some doesn't, there is a missing carbon path. This missing carbon path is not important in and of itself, except it shows we are still a long ways from understanding the carbon cycle completely, getting back to my main point.

Is the 30% effect on of the Sun likely to have a significant effect on the carbon cycle? Well, according to global warming freaks, yes, because they work the reverse, they say that a 10% change in the carbon cycle has a dramatic effect on temp, so one might presume they would agree the Sun, and its 30% cause would, by reverse logic, have at least a 4% change in the carbon cycle, at the minimum, ie, the Sun may compete with us in putting the carbon cycle out of whack.

Get the carbon cycle modeled better.

Regarding Mars. It is now three Mars seasons that the caps have been shrinking. Mars also has massive sandstorms causing dramatic temp shifts, so obviously we need more Mars seasons to really sort this out. But, I doubt the Mars problem is caused by orbit perturbations, not with this dramatic shift in just three seasons.

As far as me denying the global warming, it is not that I deny it, it is that I am not sure how much is caused by flatulance from secular animist.


Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

I see I am now talking to shadows, but here goes.

Look at the Keeling curve of CO2 concentration since 1955. Why does it rise linearly? Well, global warmists would say that oil consumption has risen linearly, more or less, and yes, they track; oil consumption and co2 concentrations.

But, today, global warmists are looking to see why half of our co2 emissioons are sequestered (it never stays in the atmosphere).

In 1960, oil consumption was a third of what is is today, and if the earth can absorb half of what we produce today, then why did it not absorb it all in 1960? Global warmists would say it is the chemistry concentration effect, chemical reactions and solutions obey an exponential curve and there will always be an a proportion of carbon that is sequestered. If this is the case, then, again, the keeling curve would not be linear. The keeling curve has to shoot up exponentially, or flatten logarithmically. It cannot be linear, unless there is a more subtle interplay with the carbon cycle, or some unknown linear forcing function is at work.

Temperature, I think, is a linear forcing function for this carbon cycle, if we correct for biomass changes. In other words, put in the carbon cycle, and I would not be suprised that a rise in temperature is causing the rise in co2.

That is, heat the ocean surface, and watch what happens to co2. Get me a chemist, and explain if the result is a linear increase in co2.

Posted by: Matt on February 9, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

I see I am now talking to shadows, . . . Posted by: Matt

Oh, it's worse than that. You're talking to the hand. Though I doubt you are unaccustomed to this.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 9, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Remember, even if you take the position that the carbon cycle is in delicate balance, and we have upset that with our 10% increawse, then we have to explain why some of our carbon does get sequestered and some doesn't, there is a missing carbon path. This missing carbon path is not important in and of itself, except it shows we are still a long ways from understanding the carbon cycle completely, getting back to my main point. "

No, the answer is pretty simple: the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100-200 years. The reason you get CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere out of equilibrium with the ocean is because only the top ~100 feet or so of the ocean is in chemical (and thermal) exchange with the atmosphere. So we are talking about long lagtimes here. Note that also the deep ocean acts as a heat sink, also causing a lag between CO2 emissions and the consequent warming.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 9, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Matt:

First, I commend you for continuing to present your point of view. I just hope that you will keep this discussion going until we can reach a conclusion. Too often I find that the "skeptics" try to muddy the waters then walk away.

Anyway, some responses to your comments:

The Sun cannot be taken in isolation of the uptake and emission of the global carbon cycle, and other cycles.

You are reading too much into Jones's comment. He said that these things need to be taken into account but he does not imply that they effect the carbon cycle.

Get the carbon cycle modeled better.

Sure the carbon cycle could be modeled better, but it is much more advanced than you acknowledge. There are a number of good papers in the last year or two out on it. One I recall shows that workings of carbon in arctic ecosystems. Another looked at how plants will evolve to take advantage of an enhanced CO2 atmosphere (i.e. can we model it with current plants or will more efficient species evolve).

Regarding the "missing carbon", if you are up on the literature you will know that in fact there is relatively missing, it found in increased uptake in a dozen different ecosystems from northern forests to deserts.

Well, according to global warming freaks, yes, because they work the reverse ...

I don't know where you came up with this idea, but could you please provide a reference. I may be misunderstanding you but I know of noone who makes this claim.

Look at the Keeling curve of CO2 concentration since 1955

Well, of course the Keeling curve starts in 1958 but I don't really agree that it is linear. FOr example lets look at it in 10 year segments:
1994 - 2004 ==> 18.5 ppm
1984 - 1994 ==> 14.5 ppm
1974 - 1984 ==> 14.1 ppm
1964 - 1974 ==> 10.8 ppm

Anyway, some food for thought. I look forward to continuing this discussion as long as Kevin does not mind us using his place. I have this bookmarked.

Yelling.


Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 9, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

USA:

I guess you mean by half life the time it takes for carbon to go through its cycle from release to sequester? If so, then you are talking only about the deep ocean sequestering, for Keeling data clearly shows variations in plant respiration over a seasonal basis. Keeling data also shows the effects of El Nino.

Back to your delicate balance theory. Deep carbon sequestering is in delicate balance. It cannot handle the extra 6% we throw at it.

Except that half of what we spew gets sequestered by short term processes in North America, meaning you have to explain why this short term process only kicked in when human emissions exceeded 3 billion tons.

The heavy carbon data suffers from a chicken and egg problem. All it shows is that our co2 emissions are showing up in the atmoshpere in proportion to the amount we spew.

I think the short and medium term sequestering is much more robust that we allow for. That the carbon cycle has been altered by processes we are not aware of.

All we are proving is that the CO2 levels seem to agree with temp rise from a green house perspective.


Posted by: Matt on February 10, 2006 at 4:33 AM | PERMALINK

"Except that half of what we spew gets sequestered by short term processes in North America, meaning you have to explain why this short term process only kicked in when human emissions exceeded 3 billion tons."

No, you're confusing stocks and flows. 50% of the anthropogenic *stock* of C02 emitted since the industrial revolution has been absorbed, not the annual *flux*.

Back to your delicate balance theory. Deep carbon sequestering is in delicate balance. It cannot handle the extra 6% we throw at it."

You're simplifying my point down to a straw man. I think the problem is that you don't have a grasp of the math involved or issues with mass balance, reactions and mass transport.

So let me use an analogy. Say I spend 106% of my (disposable) income. Not much of an excess, but over a decade or so my credit rating will be shot, yes? Even if the bank forgives half my acculumated debt, I'm still in the hole, and will continue going into the hole so long as I continue to spend beyond my means.

"All we are proving is that the CO2 levels seem to agree with temp rise from a green house perspective."

I'm profoundly confused over the point you're making: which I think is related to your (perhaps wilful) confusion over the science. If you're trying to prove that increased CO2 levels are solar-related, then the isotope data contradicts you. If you're trying to argue that we'll see an increase in CO2 sequestration that will retard CO2 increases such that there climate change will not significantly adversely affect humans healthwise or economically, then again the experimental data from Stanford's Jasper Ridge and modeling done at LBL *that you cited* contradict you.

"The heavy carbon data suffers from a chicken and egg problem. All it shows is that our co2 emissions are showing up in the atmoshpere in proportion to the amount we spew."

No, it shows that the increase in CO2 levels is because of anthropogenic activity.

"All we are proving is that the CO2 levels seem to agree with temp rise from a green house perspective."

Err. Yes. So given your above statement, do you agree that climate change is anthropogenic?

Yelling:
"Sure the carbon cycle could be modeled better, but it is much more advanced than you acknowledge. There are a number of good papers in the last year or two out on it."

Looking at the TAR, there are 25 pages of references dealing with the carbon cycle, including papers from 1994 and 1995 on using carbon isotope distribution as tests on carbon-cycle models, and a paper by Sarimento dating back to 1992. This is not some kind of neglected area, as Matt seems to think:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/126.htm

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 10, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

USA I was preparing a reply to Mike, but I think you have covered it adequately.

Re Carbon cycle --- but don;t you know that the IPCC is a liberal organization who's sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth. And the TAR is used in satanic rituals. However, I agree that the carbon cycle is well understood. As I mentioned, about a year ago I read a paper that looked at the evolution of plants and how that might change the carbon cycle. When people are worrying about second order effects it is a good sign that they know what is going on.

Now, I expect Mike to either defend his position or admit he was in error - after all anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

Regards,
Y.

Posted by: Yelling in the fog on February 10, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Posted by: 34323 on February 10, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Posted by: 34323 on February 10, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

map
map

Posted by: 433 on February 10, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly