Skeptics find global warming evidence

Often researchers find what they want to find. More persuasive is when researchers find what they do not want to find but report it anyway. A new study of climate change was funded by skeptics of global warming. They took into account the skeptics’ critiques of the methodology and data gathering used by the scientists discredited in the Climategate scandal.  Lo and behold, this new study ended up confirming the earlier research.  Actually, it found slightly higher average temperature increases.  See this report.

So now do you believe in global warming?  If not, what evidence would convince you?

I’ve been skeptical myself, not so much of global warming but of the contention that it is man-made.  Also of the contention that it will prove to be such a big disaster.

Am I reading the chart right, that the rise in temperature over the last century is only 1 degree Celsius?  Is that such a big rise that it would make much of a difference?

But I’m open to correction and enlightenment from my betters.

HT:  Kirk Anderson

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    “… the scientists discredited in the Climategate scandal.”

    Hmmm. I thought I remembered reading, in one news report after another over the past two years, that the scientists had been cleared. A quick check of the Wikipedia article on Climategate confirms my memory. Investigations by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), Science Assessment Panel (UK), Pennsylvania State University, Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK), United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

  • Tom Hering

    “… the scientists discredited in the Climategate scandal.”

    Hmmm. I thought I remembered reading, in one news report after another over the past two years, that the scientists had been cleared. A quick check of the Wikipedia article on Climategate confirms my memory. Investigations by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), Science Assessment Panel (UK), Pennsylvania State University, Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK), United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

  • Daniel Sellers

    I was surprised by this, so I went hunting down information. There are a couple of problems with this study.

    1) None of the papers have cleared peer review yet. Why they released their results before clearing peer review baffles me.

    2) They only released smoothed data. I want to see the raw data, the methods used to make any corrections, and the final data they used before I make any conclusions.

    I’ll wait to see if it clears peer review and see if they will release their code for how they calculated their results before making a judgement.

  • Daniel Sellers

    I was surprised by this, so I went hunting down information. There are a couple of problems with this study.

    1) None of the papers have cleared peer review yet. Why they released their results before clearing peer review baffles me.

    2) They only released smoothed data. I want to see the raw data, the methods used to make any corrections, and the final data they used before I make any conclusions.

    I’ll wait to see if it clears peer review and see if they will release their code for how they calculated their results before making a judgement.

  • Eric Brown

    I agree – there is climate change — however, we don’t have historical data to figure out what are the normal climate changes, so we can’t say, “Oh, this is us!” The earth has it’s own patterns, and it adapts well – when you have Krakatoa changing the sunsets around the globe, man isn’t as significant as our ego likes to say.”

  • Eric Brown

    I agree – there is climate change — however, we don’t have historical data to figure out what are the normal climate changes, so we can’t say, “Oh, this is us!” The earth has it’s own patterns, and it adapts well – when you have Krakatoa changing the sunsets around the globe, man isn’t as significant as our ego likes to say.”

  • Dan Kempin

    “I’ve been skeptical myself, not so much of global warming but of the contention that it is man-made. Also of the contention that it will prove to be such a big disaster.”

    Well, that’s rather the point, isn’t it?

  • Dan Kempin

    “I’ve been skeptical myself, not so much of global warming but of the contention that it is man-made. Also of the contention that it will prove to be such a big disaster.”

    Well, that’s rather the point, isn’t it?

  • WebMonk

    The debate really isn’t over whether or not there is warming – it’s over the cause of the warming. This study, as far as I can tell from descriptions and abstract, doesn’t even touch the cause of longer trends of warming.

    In typical fashion, news stories are blowing things wildly out of proportion. A study (which hasn’t been peer reviewed, as Daniel mentions) which doesn’t say anything new on a topic over which almost no one disagrees on either side of the arguments, is getting blown up into a major news story.

    Typical news reporting.

  • WebMonk

    The debate really isn’t over whether or not there is warming – it’s over the cause of the warming. This study, as far as I can tell from descriptions and abstract, doesn’t even touch the cause of longer trends of warming.

    In typical fashion, news stories are blowing things wildly out of proportion. A study (which hasn’t been peer reviewed, as Daniel mentions) which doesn’t say anything new on a topic over which almost no one disagrees on either side of the arguments, is getting blown up into a major news story.

    Typical news reporting.

  • Michael

    While the author of this blog is certainly a right-winger, it’s great to know he doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories like global warming being a hoax or Obama really being a Kenyan.

  • Michael

    While the author of this blog is certainly a right-winger, it’s great to know he doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories like global warming being a hoax or Obama really being a Kenyan.

  • SKPeterson

    One concern I do have is that expressed by Daniel @ 2 – the tendency to oversmooth the data. This is understandable when dealing with large time-series, but it does raise some questions. I remember reading that one issue with Climategate was not that they were massaging the data, but that they were excluding some peculiar results and readings from central Asia and Russia that indicated average temperature moves in the opposite direction, i.e. cooling effects dominating.

    If the Russian data can be confirmed alongside these results, it would appear that climate is unsurprisingly variable over time and space, and that talk of “global” climate change is moot. Some regional climates may change significantly in one direction or the other, while others remain largely unchanged.

    As to warming, I’m agnostic as to the cause, but my tendency is to go with Nature trumps Man. Anthropogenic theories of warming almost all seem to confuse correlation with causation, to the exclusion by their advocates of evidence of prior cooling or other past climate fluctuations. They talk about unnatural rates of climate change, but the Little Ice Age came on very quickly as well.

    Another issue I have is that the predictions of future warming take the trend as given, and expect that the increases in temperature will continue. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. The evidence is decidedly scant either way. My other misgivings are about the repeated invocation of the “precautionary principle,” which relies upon making extreme predictions of future catastrophe with very low probability of occurring and then demanding that policies be constructed to prevent such an outcome, usually involving the wholesale dismantling of a modern, commercial economy and a return to some type of non-industrial, agrarian existence as a “precaution.” Because it just might happen.

  • SKPeterson

    One concern I do have is that expressed by Daniel @ 2 – the tendency to oversmooth the data. This is understandable when dealing with large time-series, but it does raise some questions. I remember reading that one issue with Climategate was not that they were massaging the data, but that they were excluding some peculiar results and readings from central Asia and Russia that indicated average temperature moves in the opposite direction, i.e. cooling effects dominating.

    If the Russian data can be confirmed alongside these results, it would appear that climate is unsurprisingly variable over time and space, and that talk of “global” climate change is moot. Some regional climates may change significantly in one direction or the other, while others remain largely unchanged.

    As to warming, I’m agnostic as to the cause, but my tendency is to go with Nature trumps Man. Anthropogenic theories of warming almost all seem to confuse correlation with causation, to the exclusion by their advocates of evidence of prior cooling or other past climate fluctuations. They talk about unnatural rates of climate change, but the Little Ice Age came on very quickly as well.

    Another issue I have is that the predictions of future warming take the trend as given, and expect that the increases in temperature will continue. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. The evidence is decidedly scant either way. My other misgivings are about the repeated invocation of the “precautionary principle,” which relies upon making extreme predictions of future catastrophe with very low probability of occurring and then demanding that policies be constructed to prevent such an outcome, usually involving the wholesale dismantling of a modern, commercial economy and a return to some type of non-industrial, agrarian existence as a “precaution.” Because it just might happen.

  • Tom Hering

    “… a return to some type of non-industrial, agrarian existence …” – @ 7.

    Hmmm. The people who assert that global warming is man-made (at least the people I’ve heard) place a lot of the blame on agriculture. They also tend to propose high-tech solutions to man-made global warming. Who are these back-to-the-18th-century advocates are you’re referring to, SK?

  • Tom Hering

    “… a return to some type of non-industrial, agrarian existence …” – @ 7.

    Hmmm. The people who assert that global warming is man-made (at least the people I’ve heard) place a lot of the blame on agriculture. They also tend to propose high-tech solutions to man-made global warming. Who are these back-to-the-18th-century advocates are you’re referring to, SK?

  • George

    The evidence here demonstrated for anthropogenic global warming seems very weak to my sensibilities. The reasons are as follows:

    1.The margin of error for the earlier dates is as much as .5 degrees C, which is massive if the theory is based on there being a massive .9 degree C increase over the period of 200 years. If, the temperature for the early 1800′s really averaged at the higher end of the margin of error, then the entire theory would be based on a .4 degree increase in average temperature over 200 years. Is this really something to worry about? Is it something any would actually notice?

    2. When dealing with “the history of the world,” a 200 year sample is just not enough to derive a theory from. It is said that they grew various crops in Greenland during the 1300′s in what is known as the Medieval Warm period. In fact, this period was what ultimately led to the settling of Viking raiders, or so some argue. This is to say that not only were things warm in the past, but that they were VASTLY warmer than they are now; and yet we all survived; the world made it through, somehow. According to ice-core samples, our only reliable way of discerning the historical climate of earth before the advent of the thermometer, not only has the world been warmer in the past than it is now, but these warm periods occur with great frequency, and to no ill-effect. In fact, our current era is relatively cold according to the ice-core samplings. It is a strange thing to think that how things were in 1700 is how they always were and must always be. Is anything in life this static? Much environmentalism is pushed upon the idea that things must never change, even if the changes are entirely natural, such as the warming and cooling of the earth’s surface.

    3.If things were warmer, would it really be so bad? If there is more CO2, and warmer weather, everything grows better, right? More food = more prosperous earth, at least for all living things. As there are more plants growing, they use more CO2, and the level eventually decreases. The earth has been through a lot: giant meteors, volcanoes that spewed up more garbage than all of human history combined etc. It always makes it through. The earth is one tough cookie. I’m sure it will survive the fossil-fuel era as well.

    4. Its all a moot point, because in 80 years, we’re not gonna be burning rocks for fuel anyway.

  • George

    The evidence here demonstrated for anthropogenic global warming seems very weak to my sensibilities. The reasons are as follows:

    1.The margin of error for the earlier dates is as much as .5 degrees C, which is massive if the theory is based on there being a massive .9 degree C increase over the period of 200 years. If, the temperature for the early 1800′s really averaged at the higher end of the margin of error, then the entire theory would be based on a .4 degree increase in average temperature over 200 years. Is this really something to worry about? Is it something any would actually notice?

    2. When dealing with “the history of the world,” a 200 year sample is just not enough to derive a theory from. It is said that they grew various crops in Greenland during the 1300′s in what is known as the Medieval Warm period. In fact, this period was what ultimately led to the settling of Viking raiders, or so some argue. This is to say that not only were things warm in the past, but that they were VASTLY warmer than they are now; and yet we all survived; the world made it through, somehow. According to ice-core samples, our only reliable way of discerning the historical climate of earth before the advent of the thermometer, not only has the world been warmer in the past than it is now, but these warm periods occur with great frequency, and to no ill-effect. In fact, our current era is relatively cold according to the ice-core samplings. It is a strange thing to think that how things were in 1700 is how they always were and must always be. Is anything in life this static? Much environmentalism is pushed upon the idea that things must never change, even if the changes are entirely natural, such as the warming and cooling of the earth’s surface.

    3.If things were warmer, would it really be so bad? If there is more CO2, and warmer weather, everything grows better, right? More food = more prosperous earth, at least for all living things. As there are more plants growing, they use more CO2, and the level eventually decreases. The earth has been through a lot: giant meteors, volcanoes that spewed up more garbage than all of human history combined etc. It always makes it through. The earth is one tough cookie. I’m sure it will survive the fossil-fuel era as well.

    4. Its all a moot point, because in 80 years, we’re not gonna be burning rocks for fuel anyway.

  • trotk

    Tom, I think he is referring to me. Although I would advocate a return to agrarianism primarily because it is better for man, and secondarily because it is better for the environment.

  • trotk

    Tom, I think he is referring to me. Although I would advocate a return to agrarianism primarily because it is better for man, and secondarily because it is better for the environment.

  • HippoAugustine

    I appreciate objectivity in these times wherever I can find it….whether I like or not.

  • HippoAugustine

    I appreciate objectivity in these times wherever I can find it….whether I like or not.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The earth has been warming and cooling since time began.

    Yosemite was carved out by glacier tens of thousands of years ago.

    It melted because of SUV’s driven by the local indiginous population.

    All of man’s efforts to cool the earth is akin to spitting ijn the ocean. You see that big ol’ ball of fire in the sky? When we can contol that, then we will be able to control global warming.

    In the meantime we can run around like Chicken Littles and force everyone to buy certain kinds of useless lightbulbs and destroy economies and drive out businesses until all the eco-warriors have us all living in pup tents.

    What a joke.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The earth has been warming and cooling since time began.

    Yosemite was carved out by glacier tens of thousands of years ago.

    It melted because of SUV’s driven by the local indiginous population.

    All of man’s efforts to cool the earth is akin to spitting ijn the ocean. You see that big ol’ ball of fire in the sky? When we can contol that, then we will be able to control global warming.

    In the meantime we can run around like Chicken Littles and force everyone to buy certain kinds of useless lightbulbs and destroy economies and drive out businesses until all the eco-warriors have us all living in pup tents.

    What a joke.

  • Susan

    Man caused the greatest climate change ever when he refused to repent after hearing Noah’s preaching and warnings, thus ensuring destruction of a perfect environment by the Flood.

    That Flood caused more geological and climate change than any SUV ever could.

  • Susan

    Man caused the greatest climate change ever when he refused to repent after hearing Noah’s preaching and warnings, thus ensuring destruction of a perfect environment by the Flood.

    That Flood caused more geological and climate change than any SUV ever could.

  • Jerry

    What hasn’t been covered by the popular press is an article published in Nature last summer by researchers at CERN that found (a) the solar wind mediates the activity of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, which in turn directly affects cloud formation; and (b) it’s unknown as to which chemical compounds are most responsible for cloud formation; their data point to ammonia. Because these are new findings, they are not included in any current global warming model. In other words, no current global warming model is correct!

  • Jerry

    What hasn’t been covered by the popular press is an article published in Nature last summer by researchers at CERN that found (a) the solar wind mediates the activity of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, which in turn directly affects cloud formation; and (b) it’s unknown as to which chemical compounds are most responsible for cloud formation; their data point to ammonia. Because these are new findings, they are not included in any current global warming model. In other words, no current global warming model is correct!

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “Skeptics” didn’t write that report.

    Muller has been an AGW advocate for the last 30 years.

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/23/wapo-punked-berkeley-warmist-posing-skeptic

    The media has been duped by the Chicken Littles, again.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “Skeptics” didn’t write that report.

    Muller has been an AGW advocate for the last 30 years.

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/23/wapo-punked-berkeley-warmist-posing-skeptic

    The media has been duped by the Chicken Littles, again.

  • –helen

    Steve Martin @ 12
    In the meantime we can run around like Chicken Littles and force everyone to buy certain kinds of useless lightbulbs and destroy economies and drive out businesses until all the eco-warriors have us all living in pup tents.

    I’ll believe in Al Gore’s propaganda when he moves into a house which doesn’t exceed 500 sq ft per person living there permanently.

    I don’t see how very fragile light bulbs, containing mercury, and handed out by the electric company (with no place listed to return them for safe salvage) are benefitting the environment.
    [They aren't doing much for my eyesight either.]

  • –helen

    Steve Martin @ 12
    In the meantime we can run around like Chicken Littles and force everyone to buy certain kinds of useless lightbulbs and destroy economies and drive out businesses until all the eco-warriors have us all living in pup tents.

    I’ll believe in Al Gore’s propaganda when he moves into a house which doesn’t exceed 500 sq ft per person living there permanently.

    I don’t see how very fragile light bulbs, containing mercury, and handed out by the electric company (with no place listed to return them for safe salvage) are benefitting the environment.
    [They aren't doing much for my eyesight either.]

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Amen, Helen!

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Amen, Helen!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Global warming is caused by public funding of climate studies and “green” energy scams.
    If there were no money in it, it’d be no big deal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Global warming is caused by public funding of climate studies and “green” energy scams.
    If there were no money in it, it’d be no big deal.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    You got it, Mike.

    It’s money and control.

    Dr. Gene Veith,

    Go here first to get the true skinny on all Global Warming stories:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    Don’t be fooled by the tricks of the alarmists.

    Thanks.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    You got it, Mike.

    It’s money and control.

    Dr. Gene Veith,

    Go here first to get the true skinny on all Global Warming stories:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    Don’t be fooled by the tricks of the alarmists.

    Thanks.

  • http://www.confessionalsbytes.com/ Jim Pierce

    An interesting article, but I remain a skeptic of the claim that humans are the cause of global warming. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the planet undergoes climate change.

    Although, I am leaning to the idea that Al Gore’s “hot air” lends to global warming. :)

  • http://www.confessionalsbytes.com/ Jim Pierce

    An interesting article, but I remain a skeptic of the claim that humans are the cause of global warming. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the planet undergoes climate change.

    Although, I am leaning to the idea that Al Gore’s “hot air” lends to global warming. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    People, ask yourself: if you are so tired of Al Gore, then why do you keep bringing him up? No one else is talking about him but you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    People, ask yourself: if you are so tired of Al Gore, then why do you keep bringing him up? No one else is talking about him but you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I’m going to go ahead and post the whole Official Climate Change Response Chart:

    1) There is no global warming. It’s a myth.
    2) Even if there is global warming, it’s not due to anything we’ve done. It’s natural.
    3) Even if it is caused by modern activities, there’s nothing we can do to stop it. We’re powerless.
    4) Even if there is something we can do to stop it, we certainly can’t afford to do those things now.
    5) Even if we can afford to do those things now, we really ought to be focusing on _______ instead, and only address the climate once that’s fixed.
    6) Fine, I just don’t care and I think you’re a smelly hippy and probably going to Hell for being a pagan earth-worshipper. Okay?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I’m going to go ahead and post the whole Official Climate Change Response Chart:

    1) There is no global warming. It’s a myth.
    2) Even if there is global warming, it’s not due to anything we’ve done. It’s natural.
    3) Even if it is caused by modern activities, there’s nothing we can do to stop it. We’re powerless.
    4) Even if there is something we can do to stop it, we certainly can’t afford to do those things now.
    5) Even if we can afford to do those things now, we really ought to be focusing on _______ instead, and only address the climate once that’s fixed.
    6) Fine, I just don’t care and I think you’re a smelly hippy and probably going to Hell for being a pagan earth-worshipper. Okay?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The thing I find annoying about the whole global warming research is that people expect ignoramuses such as myself to pick a side in the controversy. There is no way I can possibly know whether, why, how much, or the impact of warming. I have no opinion and don’t plan to form an opinion on it. As for actions to ameliorate the alleged warming, most of those are just basic efforts to be less wasteful. We should do that anyway.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The thing I find annoying about the whole global warming research is that people expect ignoramuses such as myself to pick a side in the controversy. There is no way I can possibly know whether, why, how much, or the impact of warming. I have no opinion and don’t plan to form an opinion on it. As for actions to ameliorate the alleged warming, most of those are just basic efforts to be less wasteful. We should do that anyway.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 21 People tire of Gore’s holier than thou condescending moralizing. I remember him from his days of wanting to poison millions of animals to retest industrial chemicals. That pretty much turned my feelings against him. His position on climate change and our involvement doesn’t seem amazingly sincere given his own lifestyle. If he were a minimalist hippy, I would actually think he were earnest in his belief.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 21 People tire of Gore’s holier than thou condescending moralizing. I remember him from his days of wanting to poison millions of animals to retest industrial chemicals. That pretty much turned my feelings against him. His position on climate change and our involvement doesn’t seem amazingly sincere given his own lifestyle. If he were a minimalist hippy, I would actually think he were earnest in his belief.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No no, SG (@23), if you try to be less wasteful, then the hippies will have already won and Al Gore’s secret plan will come to fruition. It is your patriotic duty as an American to waste resources, precisely in order to forestall the horrible nightmare that is an America that conserves resources.

    After all, why should you save money on your electric bill if Al Gore isn’t living in a hole in the ground?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No no, SG (@23), if you try to be less wasteful, then the hippies will have already won and Al Gore’s secret plan will come to fruition. It is your patriotic duty as an American to waste resources, precisely in order to forestall the horrible nightmare that is an America that conserves resources.

    After all, why should you save money on your electric bill if Al Gore isn’t living in a hole in the ground?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG said (@24):

    His position on climate change and our involvement doesn’t seem amazingly sincere given his own lifestyle.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the same reason I stopped listening to sermons, too. Turns out my pastor’s also a sinner — what a hypocrite! Consequently, anything he says can be of no benefit to me, until the point that he shapes up.

    Oh, and Martin Luther? Total anti-Semite (at times). Which is why I’ve stopped reading everything he wrote, too.

    Etc.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG said (@24):

    His position on climate change and our involvement doesn’t seem amazingly sincere given his own lifestyle.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the same reason I stopped listening to sermons, too. Turns out my pastor’s also a sinner — what a hypocrite! Consequently, anything he says can be of no benefit to me, until the point that he shapes up.

    Oh, and Martin Luther? Total anti-Semite (at times). Which is why I’ve stopped reading everything he wrote, too.

    Etc.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, the trick is that while our pastors are imperfect as well, they do make very real limitations on their lifestyles if they in fact believe the Gospel. I simply don’t see that with Gore–from his weight to his private jets to his home, he’s living it up while telling us that all that energy he’s using is destroying the planet.

    Regarding the study at hand, it’s contradicted by the climate data since 1998, which indicates no warming, and it’s done by physicists, not climatologists. All it does, really, is take one set of data, believes it to be authoritative, and because that set of data shows warming, VOILA–it’s a fact, right?

    Not so fast, of course. The whole thing, beyond being done, AHEM, with the help of at least one guy (thanks Steve) who’s endorsed the theory since Paul Ehrlich was preaching the global ice age, simply is an exercise in begging the question.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, the trick is that while our pastors are imperfect as well, they do make very real limitations on their lifestyles if they in fact believe the Gospel. I simply don’t see that with Gore–from his weight to his private jets to his home, he’s living it up while telling us that all that energy he’s using is destroying the planet.

    Regarding the study at hand, it’s contradicted by the climate data since 1998, which indicates no warming, and it’s done by physicists, not climatologists. All it does, really, is take one set of data, believes it to be authoritative, and because that set of data shows warming, VOILA–it’s a fact, right?

    Not so fast, of course. The whole thing, beyond being done, AHEM, with the help of at least one guy (thanks Steve) who’s endorsed the theory since Paul Ehrlich was preaching the global ice age, simply is an exercise in begging the question.

  • SKPeterson
  • SKPeterson
  • Joanne

    Todd,
    Luther was not an anti-semite. He was an anti-Judaismist. He was 100% opposed to the Jewish (after Jesus) religion and especially any notion that Jesus the Messiah could not be found in the Old Testament. Whenever a proponent of Judaism would declare that Jesus could not be found in the Hebrew Bible, Luther would blast them with both barrels, he was you know a professor of O.T. at Wittenberg.

    However, any semites who were or became Christians were as good (or as bad) as any other Christians in Luther’s estimation. All the apostles and disciples were semitic Christians were they not?

    The anti-semite really doesn’t care what religion the semite is, the semite is somehow racially dirty. That racially dirty thing is not in Luther even though he could say some horrid things about Judaism and Judaismers.

    And I don’t think the race or the ethnic group of the Judaismer would get him past Luther’s invective if he denied the Messiah. Can you think of any identity group that Luther did not rail against when religion was the dispute?

  • Joanne

    Todd,
    Luther was not an anti-semite. He was an anti-Judaismist. He was 100% opposed to the Jewish (after Jesus) religion and especially any notion that Jesus the Messiah could not be found in the Old Testament. Whenever a proponent of Judaism would declare that Jesus could not be found in the Hebrew Bible, Luther would blast them with both barrels, he was you know a professor of O.T. at Wittenberg.

    However, any semites who were or became Christians were as good (or as bad) as any other Christians in Luther’s estimation. All the apostles and disciples were semitic Christians were they not?

    The anti-semite really doesn’t care what religion the semite is, the semite is somehow racially dirty. That racially dirty thing is not in Luther even though he could say some horrid things about Judaism and Judaismers.

    And I don’t think the race or the ethnic group of the Judaismer would get him past Luther’s invective if he denied the Messiah. Can you think of any identity group that Luther did not rail against when religion was the dispute?

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Al Gore is just another con-man, hypocrite.

    Lives in a big mansion (has a couple of them)… flys around in private jets…and tells YOU to turn your lights off.

    Sorry, but that’s the truth of it. He’s raking it in, though.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Al Gore is just another con-man, hypocrite.

    Lives in a big mansion (has a couple of them)… flys around in private jets…and tells YOU to turn your lights off.

    Sorry, but that’s the truth of it. He’s raking it in, though.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@27), as long as you (et al.) continue to make Al Gore a central figure in your remarks on this topic, I will interpret that as simply meaning that you are in no way serious about discussing it.

    It’s a patently obvious instance of an ad hominem attack, and, ipso facto, it’s ludicrously bad logic. If your doctor tells you that being obese is bad for your health, the truth of that statement does not depend on his personal BMI.

    But it’s real easy, ain’t it, to make it all about Al Gore, and then, of course, to dismiss the entire argument based on Al Gore? “Al Gore iz fat! Look Ma, I’s doin’ science now, hyuk hyuk!”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@27), as long as you (et al.) continue to make Al Gore a central figure in your remarks on this topic, I will interpret that as simply meaning that you are in no way serious about discussing it.

    It’s a patently obvious instance of an ad hominem attack, and, ipso facto, it’s ludicrously bad logic. If your doctor tells you that being obese is bad for your health, the truth of that statement does not depend on his personal BMI.

    But it’s real easy, ain’t it, to make it all about Al Gore, and then, of course, to dismiss the entire argument based on Al Gore? “Al Gore iz fat! Look Ma, I’s doin’ science now, hyuk hyuk!”

  • Trey

    Todd is correct, it really doesn’t matter if Gore lives up to the argument as the argument is not a person nor does it depend on him. They are separate things. We are all inconsistent in our actions vis a vis our beliefs because we are sinners.

  • Trey

    Todd is correct, it really doesn’t matter if Gore lives up to the argument as the argument is not a person nor does it depend on him. They are separate things. We are all inconsistent in our actions vis a vis our beliefs because we are sinners.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, if I’d made the entire argument about Gore, you MIGHT have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t, either.

    Facts of the matter; IPCC members routinely file court actions to avoid sharing their data. 70% of climate monitoring stations are misplaced. Good data show no warming since 1998. Even if the monitoring stations are representative, they show the effect predating the supposed cause. Climate models are a complete failure versus historical data, and finally, current data do not exceed the range seen historically.

    And the clowns at the IPCC and Gore interpret this disaster of evidence as proof of their theory, and tell us that we need to buy a smaller car while they fly to Bali in their private jets. The right inference is that this is not about science, but rather control. Just like the benefactor of Al Gore, Sr., Armand Hammer, known to the world as “Stalin’s Capitalist.”

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, if I’d made the entire argument about Gore, you MIGHT have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t, either.

    Facts of the matter; IPCC members routinely file court actions to avoid sharing their data. 70% of climate monitoring stations are misplaced. Good data show no warming since 1998. Even if the monitoring stations are representative, they show the effect predating the supposed cause. Climate models are a complete failure versus historical data, and finally, current data do not exceed the range seen historically.

    And the clowns at the IPCC and Gore interpret this disaster of evidence as proof of their theory, and tell us that we need to buy a smaller car while they fly to Bali in their private jets. The right inference is that this is not about science, but rather control. Just like the benefactor of Al Gore, Sr., Armand Hammer, known to the world as “Stalin’s Capitalist.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I already said I can’t know whether Gore is right. Assuming he is right, the guy is still annoying and his methods and behavior lack the appearance of propriety. And for the record, I want the hippies to win.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I already said I can’t know whether Gore is right. Assuming he is right, the guy is still annoying and his methods and behavior lack the appearance of propriety. And for the record, I want the hippies to win.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @26 There are preachers I don’t listen to. Also, Gore isn’t some respected scientist who has investigated and understands this stuff. He is just a visible politician who has taken up the cause. A ton of folks voted for Gore for president which demonstrates he is popular, trusted and respected by many. But that isn’t a reason to listen to him on the topic’s specifics any more than choosing to listen to Joel Osteen preach.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @26 There are preachers I don’t listen to. Also, Gore isn’t some respected scientist who has investigated and understands this stuff. He is just a visible politician who has taken up the cause. A ton of folks voted for Gore for president which demonstrates he is popular, trusted and respected by many. But that isn’t a reason to listen to him on the topic’s specifics any more than choosing to listen to Joel Osteen preach.

  • M Johnson

    I know I am late to this party, but there is considerable internal debate within the Berkley group.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

  • M Johnson

    I know I am late to this party, but there is considerable internal debate within the Berkley group.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X