Not Liberal, Just Literate

Not Liberal, Just Literate November 26, 2016

Paul Douglas quote 2

Hemant Mehta drew attention to an article in the Star Tribune about meteorologist Paul Douglas, who is an Evangelical Christian and wants to persuade his fellow Christians to accept the evidence for climate change. The quote in the meme comes via the article, but is originally from his recent book, Caring for Creation.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Swgomes

    Data, facts and evidence are not the issue, do we use them to be right or to reconcile ?

    • JamieHaman

      We can use facts for both, if careful with the language we use, and the other side will listen.
      It doesn’t have to be an either / or situation.

      The first part of changing a view in oneself, is to admit one doesn’t know everything, and the second part is being willing to learn. I often find among some that “willing to learn” is the biggest part of the problem.

      There are two sides to every coin, that’s true. It’s also true that the edge of the coin has 360 degrees of options.

      • Craig Corson

        “and the other side will listen. It doesn’t have to be an either / or situation.”
        Nor does it have to be an our side/their side situation.

        • jh

          no. In some cases, what you describe is true. But what would you say about a debate between slave owners and slave abolitionists? What about between people who supported flat earth and people who supported a round earth?

          Sometimes, it is a false equivalency to pretend that both sides are equally valid. Sometimes, one of the sides is clearly ignorant, wrong, and should not be accorded any respect. Just look at climate change as an example.

          The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (the experts who study this particular phenomena and have spent years earning their credentials) support the climate change is happening and that man is causing it. On the other side are a bunch of quacks that include maybe one climate scientist, but also include preachers, biologists, laypeople of any stripe and have absolutely no evidence to support their claims. Which would would you trust more? But if we were to pretend that both sides are equally valid, we diminish the value of expert advice by elevating ignorance and venality. That’s why I reject the pernicious idea that we need to respect the other side.

          • Craig Corson

            Oddly, I have no recollection of making that comment only five days ago. I think I might have a talk with my doctor, if I can remember her name.
            I completely agree with you, though. As with slavery and a flat Earth, climate change is settled. There can be no doubt. The deniers take the opposite view only because they have a financial stake in fossil fuels. One would think that they would take a longer view on such a crucial issue.

          • scott stone

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

            Kind debunks your ‘one climate scientist and a bunch of quacks’ argument.

          • Wussypillow

            No it doesn’t.

          • scott stone

            Well now you are just being obtuse. Your wording, “maybe one…” implies one scientist, at the most. Since there are far more scientists with a different opinion, your statement is rendered false.

          • Wussypillow

            Opinions don’t matter.

          • scott stone

            Opinions don’t matter? I’m glad to hear that. Your opinion doesn’t matter. But back to the subject at hand. Your claim is that there is one scientist at most on the other sides the issue. I’ve proven that statement to be false, but you deny your error?

          • JAM661

            Actually something like 97% of scientists believe it! I believe them bunch a bunch of people making millions off of fossil fuels to stupid to listen to any science. God never said we had to be stupid.

          • Claude

            Actually, he said “…maybe one CLIMATE scientist…” implying that A: it might be one climate scientists, more or less. if it’s one or a dozen makes no difference to the overwhelming number who support the peer reviewed science.
            And B: He’s talking about CLIMATE scientists. The personal opinions of geologists or nuclear physicists are about as valuable on the subject as a plumber’s opinion on heart surgery. They aren’t trained to evaluate the data.

            Your link above went to a page stating that such a page doesn’t exist and recommending similar searches. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+scientists+opposing+the+mainstream+scientific+assessment+of+global+warming&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&ns0=1

            Following those searches led to pages detailing the controversy, all acknowledging the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the peer reviewed science goes one way.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

          • jekylldoc

            Your link led to a “this page does not exist” location. jh is correct – there are no reputable scientists left who make substantive arguments against AGW. It is settled science.

          • beaminup

            Wow. How convenient. Let’s bring in cult psychology, where only the cult leaders decide what the cult followers are allowed and are not allowed to read. That is real science thinkun there, Reverend of climate science jekylldoc.

          • Jeffrey Gilmartin

            The overwhelming majority of ‘climate scientists’ draw their pay through grants from the federal government and it is to their financial benefit to keep the ‘man-made’ climate scam going. From the ‘global cooling’ and impending ice age of the late ’60s/early ’70s, through ‘global warming’ and polar bears about to drown, none of proved to be true. No matter what ‘grift’ Leftists try, the solution is always the same: turning more money to the government and less freedom for the people.

          • JAM661

            Well my guess you never read anything in a proper science magazine in your life. Meanwhile who has profited the most has been the oil industry. More money to the government mean more money that is used for things like roads, schools ect. Freedom of the people would be millions who would die a early death due to not healthcare. No police to protect commumities. Sounds like a great plan. Meanwhile the state that are dependant the most off of federal government fund from taxpayers are states that have lead by Republicans and have done so for over 40 years .

          • beaminup

            Proper science magazine? Apparently you are too young to remember climategate or the fact that 50 + years of doomsday predictions have largely failed. But people like you who are either unifromed or willfully ignorant.

            You failed to mention that the cities in this country where liberals like yourself have ruled with an iron grip for 40 or more, are the biggest cesspools in the nation with the largest deposits of human fecal matter, like San Francisco. Your cities are also the most crime infested of the nation, because you all do stupid things like releasing criminally insane people who almost kill the rest of us. Like the crazy in Seattle who had been arrested 3 times, but was deemed incompetent to stand trial so he was released and almost threw a random woman to her death off the 5 lane I-5.

            Yeah, pretty much nothing you liberals say is true. You have got degrees in dishonesty.

          • Atomic power was funded by the government along with many other scientific advances which received government grants. Government grants are a normal thing to receive when doing research. The tobacco industry faught research proving that smoking cigarettes can cause cancer. Why shouldn’t we be suspicious of industries that have something to loose by trying to improve our environment?

          • jekylldoc

            Jeffrey, I guarantee you that any scientist who could find substantive evidence against the AGW conclusion would have her or his career made in the shade, with ample funding from outside sources. Your conspiracy theory is not even remotely plausible.

          • Butch

            You forgot a president.

          • MCJ757

            You believe the sky is falling? Why? The weather has always changed.

          • The discussion is not about changing weather but about the climate. I wonder how many people do not understand the issue correctly because they are confused about that point.

          • beaminup

            You are ignorant about climategate. You are ignorant of Michael Mann’s Nature Trick and Keith’s Science trick to hide the divergence problem in their data. https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/ You are ignorant of 50 + years of failed Global Warming doomsday predictions. And it is you who suggest people like me should be ignored? that we are the ignorant ones. It is you who are uninformed. It is you who have no clue.

            Tell me, if you have a dozen or so climate models. When it comes to predicting the future, You would expect some to be close, some to be above and some to be lower than the actual temperatures if they were truly making independent predictions. And yet, our climate models ALL overestimate the global temperatures drastically.

          • jekylldoc

            Your climateaudit source clearly shows the significant upturn in temperatures since the 80s data which it disputes the treatment of. This is a remarkable example of trying to wish away facts with a tithe of mint and dill and cumin. “Ignore the predicted increase that came true: we want you to look at the selective treatment of the data before the increase.”

          • beaminup

            You have to be a complete scientifically illiterate buffoon to believe this is a valid scientific method.

          • jekylldoc

            Look, people interpolate all the time. I don’t have time to investigate carefully what the basis is for climateaudit’s criticism of their method,or whether their denial should be given more weight. What I do know is that predictions of warming have been made with confidence by scientists for 50 years, that the prediction has been amply confirmed, and that there is no reason to take people like you seriously. Even if the majority of the studies were flawed, the fact remains that there is no alternative hypothesis capable of explaining the facts we have, and that this science has been proved substantially correct by having made a prediction we would not have otherwise been able to make, and seeing it confirmed.

          • beaminup

            Steve McIntyre discovered through analyses of their work that they had created their graphs fraudulently, in the latest 2008. The emails from the scientists themselves confirmed this fraud.

            You are blinded by your ideology. The predictions of warming have NO CONFIDENCE intervals. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show me a single GCM that actually shows error bars. You can not have “great confidence” if you did not define, before hand what is your rejection level was. You learn this in first year statistics classes, and yet people like you pretend that the “science”e is better than it is. We simply do not have enough data for you to be taken seriously, after perhaps 100-200 years with computers that have a minimal capability of what could be done as of the late 90’s then we may be able to take you seriously. But the models have gotten the climate wrong, really wrong. so stop pretending that they have done such a great job.

          • jekylldoc

            When you say “wrong, really wrong”, please say what you mean in quantitative terms. Their predictions have not been spot on every time, but they have successfully predicted a trend that would not have been predictable without our knowledge of GHG effects, and it continues to tell how things will unfold.

            By the way, the first report I looked at, seeking forecasts through Google, included (in the bottom row of the charts, under 4.2.2 alternative scenarios) a range around the scenario forecasts which shows the confidence interval. Sorry that it uses color rather than bars, but it is acknowledging uncertainty. Not even in the most optimistic scenario concerning human action did the temperatures have any chance of falling.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/4/

      • Wussypillow

        “and the other side will listen. ”

        No, they won’t. It has been proven: The right WILL NOT listen to us.

        “There are two sides to every coin”

        But we’re not talking about coins; we’re talking about facts. Fuck your worthless analogies.

        • JamieHaman

          I think you may have missed the comment I replied to. Swgomes says the facts are not in question, the question is do we use them to be right or to reconcile.
          “Data, facts and evidence are not the issue, do we use them to be right or to reconcile ?”
          Nope, facts and evidence are not the issue, solutions are. There is ALWAYS more than 2 solutions to a problem. That was my point.
          Work on your reading and comprehension skills.

          • Wussypillow

            No, you are wrong.

    • Audrey

      If only it were that simple. I see the issue as “facts” being defined too broadly. Science can observe and see patterns, but it is not a discipline that is meant to come up with solutions, certainly when politics are involved.

  • scott stone

    My greatest issue with the climate change debate is the substitution of religious zeal for actual science. And that is on the part of those who purport to be adherents to science in the name of climate change. The science in this particular field is quite new and still developing; it is not “established” or “settled” by any rational stretch. There is no consensus as to exactly what this change will entail, nor any accurate way to predict what will happen given any action or inaction on our part as a species. (And as a side note, science is not about consensus.) In other words, nobody can say exactly how warm the planet will be in 10, 50, or 100 years. The last 16 years of data prove that.

    Contrast this to basic physics, where a given problem can be given to scientist the world over, and the exact same answer will be reached. Predictability and repeatability are the hallmarks of established sciences. Those who blindly state that climate change will doom us all, and cutting our carbon emissions is the only path to salvation are no better than religious zealots thumping their chosen texts.

    I’m not being dismissive just for the sake of being contrary. What I’ve seen of the process does not give me confidence that a solid adherence to the “scientific method” has been allowed so far. The IPCC has admitted that they got 111 of their 114 climate models wrong in the September (2013) AR5 report. That’s a 97% failure rate. Back in their original 1990 report (FAR), they predicted we’d warm by +0.3 C per decade (up to +0.5 C per decade). Actually, we’ve warmed by +0.15 C per decade since 1990, including just +0.03 of warming since the late 1990s. So their 1990 predictions were off by 100%. Why should we have confidence that their current predictions are any more (or less) accurate?

    • jekylldoc

      scott –
      This is a confused response. No one is asking voters to consider current predictions “accurate”. The error bars are acknowledged to be rather wide. The problem is commercial interests using that imprecision to argue that we don’t know GHG are cooking the planet. We do.

      When that basic fact at the heart of the error bars is recognized, then it is clear that action needs to be taken. Externalities (side effects on the general well-being) don’t solve themselves, because there is no money in solving them unless the government does something about them. There are many possibilities for settling on a best guess and figuring out how much action to take. But one thing is certain: if we do nothing, we do harm to the environment that will take millenia to be undone.

      • beaminup

        You are confused. 50 + years of failed doomsday predictions says you are full of it. Climategate tells us that at least one group of ‘climate scientists’ were cooking the books to get the results they preferred, rather than reporting the problems with their data that probably would have ended their chosen field of study. But when you have 20 or so years of study into a field, are you really willing to tell the whole world that what your models predicted was a complete farce.

        And the worst part for people like you is that almost every one of the supposed “greater than can be expected” doomsday predictions comes from that failed group of graphs.

        There are also problems with the ice cores on a similar scale, which completely blows apart the assertions of past climate. https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1155562002535731200

        • jekylldoc

          I have looked at the “climategate” material. Some of it involves either deception or egregious errors, but most of it is right-wing effort to paint a conspiracy out of scientists communicating their frustration to each other, that the billionaires have hoodwinked a lot of reluctant voters into imagining that the science is not solid. As time has gone on, the scientific predictions have proved accurate with greater and greater confidence. The fundamental fact will not go away: accumulating greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, and the atmosphere keeps getting warmer. When your doctor tells you that things are going to get worse if you don’t do something about your behavior, you can engage in denial if you want to, but the doctor is not lying to you.

          You like to argue that there have been more than 50 years of doomsday prediction that failed, but of course the opposite is true. The predictions have come true with remarkable fidelity, and the doomsday scenarios are still lurking out there in the not-too-distant future. Australia, California and Florida are already seeing drastic increases in climate-driven disasters, hurricane damage is up by several orders of magnitude, floods in the Midwest, heat waves and snowstorms are all moving into extreme ranges relative to the past, and it isn’t going to stop getting worse.

          You argue that the “greater than expected” conclusion is based on the inaccuracies of the climate scientists who fudged their data. I would welcome the chance to review the basis for that claim. However, I would also point out that “greater than expected” is just extra reason for concern – the expected temperature rises are sufficient to justify action.

          I’m not sure what ice core issues you are worried about, but we long ago passed beyond the possibility that current experience is just a past fluctuation repeating. Furthermore the fingerprints of GHG on the climate effects has been unmistakeable since the 80s: warming is greater at night than in the day and the upper atmosphere is cooling, neither of which is plausible as a result of fluctuations like those of the past. Other predictions, such as the greater warming at the poles and the increased acidification of the oceans, have been verified. The science may not get every number precisely on a target, but it has told us far more than a reasonable person needs to accept the conclusions drawn.

          I can see that you like the conspiracy theory approach. Rather than face reality, you tell yourself a narrative about scientists secretly scheming to deceive. I would just let you go your own bizarre way except that I care deeply about what kind of world my grandchildren will be able to live in. So I urge you to stop feeding off of cherry-picked criticism, mostly financed by the fossil fuel industry, and ask yourself why the science just keeps getting confirmed, to a greater and greater extent, if it is all a plot. There is no more important question for us to consider as the human race.

          The most tragic part of the whole sad history is that we could have avoided our current situation with a reasonably small cost. It doesn’t take huge tax burdens to give industry the needed incentive to do something about an externality. But no incentive at all will clearly not get the genius of capitalism engaged. Which is exactly how Charlie Koch likes things, of course.

          • beaminup

            Right-wing conspiracy? Guess you can’t do basic math, can you? Explain to me how steve McIntyre, a brilliant mathematician who placed 1st on Canada’s national math test In 1965, figured out in 2008 that michael mann had a divergence problem and he figured out that they had spliced in the actual temperature data way back then. But the most damning evidence that even an obtuse Individual such as yourself can not deny is that when the climategate emails were dropped in November of 2009, The scientists, specifically dr phil jones of the cru, were emailing each other and talking about how they had applied Mike’s Nature Trick to hide EXACTLY what Steven McIntyre discovered through analog the data and their graphs.

            But you so smart, I bet you think the year 2008 came after 2009. Don’t you? I blame Common Core math for failing your generation. You can’t even think for yourself.

          • beaminup

            You may have “read through it”, but i lived it. I followed every detail that is how i know you are a foolish child who is in way over your head.

            You can’t even explain the basic problem so you resort to ad hominem.

            Admit it, you don’t understand what the problem was so you are relying on google to tell you and the charlatans who committed the fraud in the first place.

            You are as foolish as a person who believes a bank robber when he says, “I didn’t rob that bank.” When you can see him on video robbing that bank. We caught these fraud scientists red handed.

          • jekylldoc

            The basic problem is that Greenhouse gases prevent some of the re-radiation of heat from the earth because they are opaque to infrared wavelengths. This was established more than 100 years ago. I’m sure you are quite capable of claiming that greenhouses don’t heat up when the sun shines, and finding somebody who fudged temperature data on a greenhouse to “prove” your point, but anybody with a car knows you are talking moonshine.

    • gimpi1

      My understanding is that sea-ice is melting at the predicted rate, and flooding along coastal and island regions is rapidly becoming a crisis. In addition, increased energy (heat) in climatic systems is leading to more energetic storms.

      Now, I’m not a climate scientist. However, I’m married to a scientist, a geologist. My husband has done some work in studying past climate – much of the record is geologic – and has worked with some climate scientists.

      May I ask, where did you get your statistics?

      • scott stone

        IPPC.ch. The modeling is unfortunately a mess. Climate science is a difficult field and I applaud the work but when it becomes antithetical to science, (i.e. consensus. Science is not about consensus, it’s about repeatable proven fact.) I take issue with that. Here are two great articles from climate scientists. The big take away is how you better not think outside of the box or you’ll get crucified.

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/judith-curry-climate-models-cant-be-trusted/news-story/ef5bbd8488fd6802fcc8d12696a3a744

        What happened to Pielke, from the wsj article, is disgusting. To me that is evidence enough that it’s not about the science, it’s about an ideology.

        • gimpi1

          Thank you for the links. Unfortunately, I don’t subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and that article is behind a pay-wall. The Herald-Sun article was interesting, however I admit to a bit of skepticism regarding outliers. My husband was in grad-school during the plate-tectonics revolution, and he saw the consensus shift as evidence accumulated. For decades, however, there were geologists who refused to accept this – including very good ones.

          Anita Harris developed the whole science of index fossils, revolutionizing oil resource location. However, she fought against the evidence for plate tectonics for most of her career – for what appeared muddy at best. She’s not the only geologist that did that. There are mountains of evidence for plate tectonics – in fact, some of the evidence are mountains. That didn’t matter to the few outliers. They firmly believed in their position. They were wrong.

          Another example is the industry-led war on the fact that tobacco causes cancers. Tobacco companies founded the Tobacco Institute and hired a few outlier scientists who were firmly convinced that the basis for cancer was genetic and that environmental pollutants had no effect. They manufactured controversy for decades, using these outliers, who firmly believed in their position. They were wrong.

          Another example of outliers is the Intelligent design group. They have no evidence, they don’t even have a theory that can be tested, and yet, there are a few outlier scientists that continue to argue against the basic principle of modern biology – evolution. They are totally sincere in their beliefs. They are wrong.

          Sometimes, there’s consensus for a reason. That doesn’t mean that the consensus is always correct, but it does mean when you’re supporting outlier positions, the evidence has to be damn good. Right now, from what I know, I think the consensus has better evidence.

          Thanks for the conversation. It’s nice to be able to discuss things like this in a civil manner. I enjoyed it.

          • scott stone

            Me as well. People don’t discuss anymore and that’s a shame. I’m not saying a position against anthropogenic climate change is the correct position. I’m just saying people with opposing views shouldn’t be demonized as they are right now. And what political ideology is currently invested in demonizing diversity of thougt? It’s the left. If you disagree with an Obama policy, you’re a racist. If you think women reporters shouldn’t be in men’s locker rooms or male reporters shouldn’t be in female locker rooms, you’re a sexist. If you disagree with climate science you’re a denier, equivalent to someone who denies the holocaust. If your positions are conservative you can’t speak at college campi for fear of offending someone. It’s getting crazy. And people wonder why the orange man won the Whitehouse!?

          • gimpi1

            Interesting. My perspective is exactly the opposite. I’ve been told I have no morals because i don’t follow a faith. I’ve been told I’m a baby killer because I don’t want to ban most forms of birth control. I’ve been accused of being a parasite because, presumably, I don’t work. (In fact i do. I’ve been employed or self-employed for almost 40 years.) I’ve had people swear that absolute nonsense is true, because “I saw it on Facebook.” Back in my young-and-beautiful days, I had (always conservative) men sit down beside me on the bus and launch into their manifesto. (Tip, gentlemen; that doesn’t work as a pick-up line.)

            Perhaps, whatever “side” we find ourselves, we perceive ourselves under attack. That might be in part because we’re so nasty to each other. It’s not enough to say, “I disagree;” “here’s my problem with that;” or “here’s my evidence for my position”. We have to attack each other. Perhaps, we can be the change we want, and have actual conversations, without name calling or nonsense. I think we’ve made a good start:-)

            One thing I feel strongly, facts have no politics. Climate change shouldn’t be regarded as ‘progressive.’ Evidence suggesting that it isn’t caused by human activity shouldn’t be called ‘conservative.’ Too often people choose up teams, and support positions because they seem to be the one their team likes. I hate that. It’s an easy way to make huge mistakes. Personally, I feel Mr. Trump’s winning the electoral college and thus the presidency was one of those mistakes. Time will tell if I’m right.

          • scott stone

            We’ve all become the other side of the same coin; a distinction without a difference.

          • RohoSombrero

            I do believe the evidence for climate science is irrefutable, and the inaccuracy of the models you suggest may be evidence against climate change is anything but. Laypeople on this subject often misinterpret things. Case in point ‘climategate’ which resulted in scientists getting death threats for simply describing their methodology to other scientists. The only people saying climate change isn’t real work for industries which have a lot to lose when actions are taken to mitigate it. They know they can’t stop this, but if they throughout enough misinformation they can delay it. It’s very similar to what the tobacco companies did.

          • Silverwolf13

            Note that the main ad agency for the tobacco companies is the same one that is trying to spread confusion about climate change. Their tactic is not to deny the evidence but simply to say that there is uncertainty, and that the costs of moving away from fossil fuels are too great. (See James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”, and Naomi Klein and Erik M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”)

          • jekylldoc
          • Audrey

            Gimp – let’s not mix the climate debate with the ID debate. It weakens your case. Climate change is observable fact, and mostly human caused, but where the progressives go off the rails is assuming we can turn it around, just like turning down the thermostat at home. Climate change is largely irreversible, and even if you think we can reverse it, the human will do do so, in the degree necessary, is nearly impossible to achieve.

      • momsaid

        Ask your geologist husband about the movement of continental plates. Some parts of the American east coast have slightly shorter shorelines, but not because of more water. The tectonic plates on the west end are raising that end, and lowering the opposite end. It’s changing the land’s altitude/elevation, not water depth.

    • Reed Hartman

      As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, “How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?” Edison replied, “I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps.”
      That is science. The models weren’t wrong, they just weren’t completely right. Physics, that you so acclaimed above, has had just as much history of “failure”. It is a good thing that Edison didn’t give in to naysayers, or this world would be a much darker place.

      • scott stone

        Then let’s use mathematics. By your explanation, stating that 2+3=5 isn’t wrong, it’s just not completely right.

        • Reed Hartman

          If it is 2x+3y=5z, where x=1, y=6, and z=4. then yes it isn’t wrong, and would be wrong with different variables . Please don’t be a simpleton, you know this isn’t about basic math, it is about complex equations that even geniuses have trouble keeping in their heads sometimes.

          • jekylldoc

            A lot of people are poking their head into the sand, saying to themselves, “the world is not complex, the world is easy to understand, and whatever I want to be true is the truth.”

            Quite a few others are saying, “Well, if the fossil fuel industry is giving out money to people who can brazenly pretend they have made an argument, I intend to be first in line.”

          • momsaid

            If what you say is correct, the fossil fuel industry would be in charge of all studies, and weed out any that disagree with their positions. They would also have control of journalists, making sure that any article abt AGW theories follows in line. Since this is not the case, one may ask who funds these unsupportable, unverifiable studies, then advertises them as absolute truth.

          • jekylldoc

            I don’t think your first statement follows at all, nor do I understand your last question. But I know that the administration deliberately hired one of the last climate skeptic academics with any self-respect to head their EPA, precisely because he insists on such a high standard of proof that virtually no medicine, to use an example, could be practiced under such a standard. See “Merchants of Doubt” if you want to understand what is going on.

            The funded pretenders I was referring to are on the internet, much more than they are in academia. Aside from a few bought souls who pretend to challenge AGW and can’t generate any science that passes muster, (roughly the equivalent of Young Earth Creationists who keep tossing up specious arguments and, when they are shot down, just move on to the next one) academia has professional standards too rigorous for brazen lying.

          • jekylldoc

            I am intrigued by the down votes showing up here. I have tried to use the feature before, with no success. I can’t see the names who managed to downvote my posts. But I am interested to see that it is not totally disabled.

          • beaminup

            I think you don’t know anything about the way the data was fudged to get the predetermined results in climategate do you?

            The main problem was that the tree chronologies diverged. Michael Mann and Keith Briffa truncated their graphs where the divergences occurred and added the actual temperature data back in. https://climateaudit.org/20

            If they had followed the scientific method, after they had calibrated their graph, then at any point in time for which they had tree ring data they should have been able to plug in the numbers to their graph and have gotten a pretty close match for the actual temperature. As it did not work for a time for which we have actual temperature data, it can not be relied upon for any point in the past, especially when we do not have actual temperature data to match.

            This fact should have ended their carriers and the fact that they went to such extremes to hide this fact should have found them in federal prison. Instead the academics circled the wagons refusing to even interview the brilliant mathematician who discovered their forgery.

          • jekylldoc

            So I get that you and “climateaudit” don’t accept their methodology, and you may be right about that. I don’t believe adjudicating one interpretation of past data would tell us anything at all of importance about the fundamental facts. Do you know of any studies who show that previous patterns can explain the present experience? If so, how do they handle the fingerprints of AGW that cannot be explained by variations in solar energy or in the tilt of the earth? Or are you just happy to throw dust into the air and hope people can’t see through it?

          • Silverwolf13

            The fossil fuel industry is not, thankfully, in charge of all research. That is not for lack of trying, though. The Koch brothers have conditioned their donations to universities upon limitations on research. Fortunately, even they don’t have enough money to fund many universities.

            They Koch brothers also tried funding a skeptical scientist at UC Berkeley to prove that global warming was wrong. That backfired. The scientist’s research showed that global warming was indeed happening and that it was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

          • momsaid

            And core samples show that throughout history, CO2 levels rose AFTER warming spans. We are about to enter another Maunder Minimum era, according to decreasing sun spot activity. Got coal?

          • Silverwolf13

            Most climate change episodes were caused by changes in the earth’s orbit. Often, a warming episode would cause release of stored CO2 from peat bogs, permafrost, forest fires, etc., that would exacerbate the warming already in progress.

            At other times, a massive release of CO2 would cause warming on its own, as at the Permian-Triassic boundary in which the volcanism of the Siberian Traps released massive amounts of CO2, causing the extinction of some 90% of all then extant species.

            Note that we are now releasing CO2 many times faster than did the Siberian Traps. That extinction resulted from a rise in temperature of 6 degrees C over a period of several millennia, and plants and animals could not adapt quickly enough. We are on course to raise global temperatures by 6 degrees C over the next century or two.

          • beaminup

            George Soros spends fare more money than anything you imagine the Koch Brothers do. And Governments dwarf spending by the oil industry by orders of magnitude. Furthermore getting money for research is a hard task. If you can scare the he** out of everyone then it sure makes it easier to keep the funding for your research project going.https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/apr/15/sexism-disadvantage-women-academics. Scientists are not purely motivated by altruistic desired to save the world. Some have huge egos.

        • Acevoice

          There years later…

          Australia’s NS Wales in blazing, in quick follow-up of the sad state of California. In the same month, previously semi-arid Eastern Africa hinterland is submerged after unprecedented rains flooded huge swarths of land. Last June saw large scale snowfall in Mexico, in some places to near 6-feet highs that literally covered reticulated trucks. Accross the pond, Europe was in throws of sequenced heatwaves that turned lethal for near hundred lives.

          To expect colourful charts depicting global warming is illiterate. The infinitesimal 0.5 degree increment is all that matters in ten minute duration to cause protein denaturing and lead to death. The melting polar iceshelf or the equivalent Himalayan snow might not cause a mere inch sea-level rise in Lower Manhattan, while in the Oceania’s vulnerable islands the sea level rise of one inch could submerge half of the cultivable land.

          Seeing climate change from a highrise armchair analysis beats the purpose. Airconditioned room might escape the heatwave, but crop failures elsewhere and resultant goods-and-service availability and affordability surely marks some change. But at whose cost?

          • beaminup

            You fail to acknowledge that from previous genrattions’ doomsday predictions have largely failed. We would have a better outcome if we put the probabilities up on a dart board and threw darts than to listen to charlatan scientists. Scientists are great at understanding things that have happened. Unfortunately time has proven that this does not translate to being good fortune tellers. You should spend a little more time studying history and a little less time studying the histrionics of todays doomsday sayers.

          • Acevoice

            You are right, projections are just fortune-telling with certain given deviations. That’s all sciences can do, predict.

            But then again, life is more about looking ahead that backwards. History tells us what happened but little of why we are here today, not offer anybhope for a moro. History is just like dwelling in caves looking for lost meaning. Its easier that way to understand archeology. Looking for the dead amongst the dead by the nearly dead.

            What of sciences? Pick any field of your liking, please. All will give you a wide allay of posibilities. Physics will open you up to what we have- matter! What of chemistry? You will get to see the diversity of the matter and their interactions therein. What of biology? Thats when the meaning and value of your life will be explained. What of mathematics? All your numbers and patterns become clear. Social sciences? Why you should live in harmony with other human beings. Political science… why not to be the bully in the backyard as you have no control of matter. Architecture… designs and planning. Research and development… thinking of a tomorrow instead of burrowing oneself into an early grave. And history? What was then.

            What does history tell us about spatio-temporal weather and the link with climate change? If there was the glacial moraine during the glacial period, can we use that knowledge to our advantage today? If we learn about the flooding of the El Nino and followup drought of La Nina, can we within some certainty predict what can happen at a geographical region and hence put in place medical support facilities that would affect a certain proportion of an age blanket as well as estimate the monetary cost of counteractive investments towards addressing the stress in infrastructure?

          • jekylldoc

            beaminup – “We would have a better outcome if we put the probabilities up on a dart
            board and threw darts than to listen to charlatan scientists.” You realize, I’m sure, that this is total bogus spit. On a dartboard, decreases in temperature are just as likely as increases. If it was all randomness and scientists just happened to get lucky with their forecasts, then there is as much likelihood that temperatures will decline over the next five years as that they will increase. Care to place a bet on that? Because we both know it is not going to happen.

          • beaminup

            Um… unlike you I have bothered to verify past predictions. If you’re not too lazy, then see if you can’t prove a single one of these past decades doomsday predictions wrong. They stretch all the way back to the 1930’s. https://www.theepochtimes.com/dozens-of-failed-climate-predictions-stretch-80-years-back_3096733.html

            I know it is hard, but you need to go to the actual links referenced in the article. They cite the actual original articles from decades past where you can read the original.

            Doubt you will do more than look at the title and hand waive it as a “right-wing” conspiracy. I know math, data and facts are hard for you leftist types, but do try to keep up on this one. You might just learn something if you can swallow your pride.

          • jekylldoc

            The article you linked to looks at press reports, not consensus science. Somebody might have warned that the Maldives could be underwater by now, but most likely if you look at the science it was based on, the prediction included the current water level within the likely range. The original science also would have included in its likely range the current predictions that in another 30 years most of the Maldives will generally be under water. The article goes on to point out that some coral atolls have actually grown rather than sinking (which is established knowledge – I first read about it in the 70s) as sea levels have been rising. That does not mean sea levels are not rising. A few overstated predictions, cherry-picked for sensation, does not tell us anything at all about the science and how it works.

          • beaminup

            Nope, you sciency types are just a bunch of hard nosed liars. You have no problem shaping the public opinion with opeds in publications such as the New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/listening-to-james-hansen-on-climate-change-thirty-years-ago-and-now

            And yet in spite of the fact that you can see with your own eyes that the scientists of THIS generation are trying to influence public opinion in the same ways as they have in years past. You ignore that fact, and pretend that the “peer reviewed” scientists were only publishing in journals. You are a fraud and a phony covering the inequities of climate science with your lies about peer review, just like all the other charlatans.

            Once scientific predictions have been made, we do not need a Ph.D. to tell us whether that prediction came true or not, we don’t need to be able to read some journal that hides behind a paywall. the probability is either 0 or 1, there is no other option. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, used by those who cannot win with the facts.

            The worst thing is that people like you are distracting us from preparing for the eventual ice age. I come from a farming background. I can tell you that you can not grow food in a snowbank. When the day comes that the ice age comes back a lot of people are going to starve. And because of people like you who have distracted us from doing anything about it, more people are will die than would have. When temperatures rise and co2 rises plant production rises. When they fall and you have nothing but ice, plants stop growing. We can not prepare for this future event because we are wasting so much money on the fraud that has become climate science.

            The part that ticks me off the most, is that our educational system does not teach our kids all the facts and then let them make up their own minds, it tells them WHAT to think, and this is a travesty no worse than communism, which does the exact same thing.

          • This is sad, the way it uses “making up our own minds” to support the notion that people without expertise should be free to misrepresent reality, rejecting those who dedicate their lives to studying something as at best “sciency types” and at worst “charlatans,” all while never seeming to realize that they themselves and their chosen alternative sources can be and are more likely to be charlatans, and it is only due to lack of expertise and of understanding how science works as an endeavor that those purveyors of misinformation can seem plausible.

    • jh

      It’s because climate is complicated. For a very long time, scientists were baffled by where the excess heat was going. Then, they found out where it was going. It was going into our oceans. (And honey, even a one degree increase is worrying. Just look at how much energy you require to raise your pot of water one degree. Then look at the millions of pots of water that is the ocean and think of how much heat was required to increase the ocean temperature by even one degree.)

      What we can’t do is hide our heads in the sand because we don’t want to accept it. The few quacks that deny man made climate change have easily ascertained motives or lack of credentials. It is not even close to a 50/50 split on whether climate change is being accelerated by man made activities.

      And meanwhile, I’m laughing in disbelief that the US is so stupid and there are so many conservatives who lack basic critical thinking skills. China is the number one seller of solar panels. it should have been us that were the number one seller. But I blame conservatives for wanting to preserve dying industries that are equivalent to buggy whip companies rather than looking at the trends and being competitive with the global market. Conservatives merely want to create a fancy tomb so they can die in comfort.

      • scott stone

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/judith-curry-climate-models-cant-be-trusted/news-story/ef5bbd8488fd6802fcc8d12696a3a744

        I’m in favor of reducing fossil fuels but many on the left think it is an easy switch. When you can tell me how we will get an Airbus 380 from LAX to Paris without fossil fuels, then I’ll engage. But as of right now, eliminating fossil fuels is pure fantasy and ignorance.

        • Silverwolf13

          Airlines have been testing and using biodiesel to power jet planes for several years. I would suggest using hydrogen, if we can develop an economical to produce it from water by electronics.

        • therealjeaniebeanie

          The complexity for switching fuel sources for jumbo jets is no excuse to throw up barriers to switching to renewable fuel sources for low-hanging fruit like warming and cooling buildings or supplying electricity.

          • Scott

            I’m not in disagreement with this. I’m in disagreement with the position of many climate extremists that spout the “we have to be off of fossil fuels completely within 10 years or else” trope. It’s difficult to take seriously sometimes when we’ve been subjected to the 10 year dooms day scenario for 40 years. There’s a plethora of peer reviewed articles about how wrong the consensus was regarding the ozone hole crisis. Could this be the same situation?

          • jekylldoc

            Scott – I would like to look at any articles critiquing the ozone hole diagnosis and remedy. Ironically, it turns out that fighting ozone depletion by phasing out CFC’s was the single most effective move we have made against global warming. Of course if we had known, the ignorance industry would have swung into action to oppose the improvement.

    • ocschwar

      “The science in this particular field is quite new and still developing”

      The warming hypothesis was firrst proposed in 1824. It was first tested experirmentally in 1856.

      • Scott

        I’m not sure 19th century experimentation in this field could be considered science. They still used leeches to treat various ailments and I wouldn’t call that medicine.

        • ocschwar

          “I’m not sure 19th century experimentation in this field could be considered science”

          Then you should read on what was done and how. Your google search term for the day is John Tyndall

        • arcseconds

          What an odd comparison.

          It’s probably fair to say that medicine was not a mature science until the germ theory of disease was established in the later 19th century, but it hardly follows from that that all 19th century investigations weren’t science.

          I mean, presumably you don’t think that 19th century physics was somehow not science, or 19th century chemistry…

          • Scott

            I made the initial point that climate science, serious climate science, was still a young field and certainly not settled, which someone seemed to disagree with. The individual pointed to a 19th century scientist. Hence the reason for my response. I was pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

          • arcseconds

            Oh, pardon me, I thought you were trying to make a serious point about the state of 19th century science!

            But if you accept that some 19th century science was quite mature and were just making a silly comparison with medicine for the lulz (hoho they also believed in seances back then, what fools) then the point still stands, doesn’t it? Research into the greenhouse effect began in the 19th century.

            Have you looked up Tyndall?

        • liberalinlove

          Don’t they occasionally still use leeches?

        • therealjeaniebeanie

          I keep reading that leeches are useful for eating dead tissue without harming healthy tissue and that their use is being revived, if only experimentally.
          Surely you don’t seriously think that reference to the use of leeches in medicine is somehow an argument against the value of all science in the 19th century?

    • Robert Conner

      Climate models frequently turn out wrong because climate change is non-linear with multiple positive feedback mechanisms in play as you would know if you could be bothered. So data from a few years ago generally underrates the intensity and speed at which changes occur as (again) you’d know if you could be bothered. But don’t let the overwhelming international consensus of climate scientists get your knickers wadded.

      • Scott

        I just don’t believe it to be settled science. I’m also at odds with the idea that consensus is science. I was trying to recall some of the other “scientific” threats to the planet and the histeria that followed. I remember not that long ago we were all going to perish because of the depletion of ozone and the ever growing ozone whole. Well we all know how that turned out.

        • Gary

          Y2K. I don’t know about climate, but I am rather disgusted at the amount of money poured into a possible Y2K fix, with contractor’s getting millions to fix a computer glitch pre-2000, because that was going to end our civilization. Even after nothing happening at 1 January 2000, the same contractors were crying about the possibility of a crisis in Jan 2001, since that was the true, new century, simply to get more money on software fixes.

          Ever heard of “proportionality” response? A “fix” can also be disastrous.

          • Scott

            How about the belief in 1988 that all the oceans would be dead in 10 years. Seems like there are always 10 predictions that never come about.

          • jekylldoc

            Gary – lots of money was spent to see that Y2K disasters did not happen. You don’t get to claim the prediction was overblown if the problem failed to materialize because we stopped it.

            I get the “keeping away tigers” claim that any forecast of a problem could be just an exaggeration to justify financing the prophet of doom. But if there is a reason to believe the problems are likely, then reasonable people do something about it. If you smell gas in your house, do you blame doomsayers, or do you call the fire department?

        • Robert Conner

          The thinning of the ozone layer due to CFC’s in the atmosphere wasn’t an empty threat as any informed person knows. Humanity dodged that bullet because politicians, even pols as incompetent and dimwitted as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, listened to scientists. And BTW, it’s “hole,” not “whole.:

          • Scott

            I know it’s a “hole”. A bit too fast on the keyboard.
            The decrease in CFC level in the atmosphere to make an impact would take a minimum of 150 years. This was always a manufactured crisis. There is good science out there that admits the issue was dramatically over blown.

          • Gary

            It’s all about the money.

          • Scott

            And ideology.

          • jekylldoc

            Please point out a link to the “good science” claiming the problem was “dramatically overblown”?

        • therealjeaniebeanie

          Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with science, either.

          • Scott

            Ok, let me rephrase my position. It’s not settled science.

        • jekylldoc

          So, how about when science is used to make a prediction, and the prediction turns out to be true? Is that not enough prima facie evidence to take the science seriously? Can you point to a single incident in which the scientific prediction was repeatedly confirmed by evidence and then turned out to be false? I have dealt with a lot of science in my life and I don’t know of any.

          The ozone hole has gradually been “healing”. We constantly replenish the ozone layer, at slow rates. If we had not stopped CFC production, the rates of skin cancer that were predicted would have actually materialized. (As it was, many deaths in Australia did occur before the problem was significantly reduced.) You don’t get to claim predictions were false if they did not come true because we fixed the source of the problem.

    • Whole volumes could be written on what’s wrong with the junk science of climate change but it wouldn’t matter because regressives know only insults. We only need to keep them from doing too much damage for another decade when cooling temps will prove what fools they have been.

      • beaminup

        And we are drastically unprepared to produce food for the billions when the next ice age takes over. These fools are wasting valuable time we could be learning how to take care of our starving masses when the ice makes it impossible to produce food.

      • jekylldoc

        Well, finally a climate skeptic goes on the record. Could we arrange a small bet over the likelihood of cooling temps in the next decade? Say, a thousand dollars?

  • Lelouche

    One of the more prominent issues revolving around this discussion–and I use the term loosely–is that people who do not agree with certain points of the general narrative are clumped in with a very small group of people labeled “climate change deniers”. It completely precludes any kind of reasonable dialogue for any of the follow up conversations that need to be had, like “what do we do about this” and “what is causing this”.

  • davidt

    Climate change due to human activity is a fact. It’s being used to justify political tendencies. What’s curious this environmental issue lays 100% at sciences feet as the fundemental causation. I have read the Bible many times and no matter what, it’s profoundly devoid of science. The new testament is even more so than the old testament. Almost as if it was intentional curiously. So isn’t the right evangelical response that science for all its contemporary hubris fails to account for itself in this fiasco? Not a single scientist has point to science as the problem. isn’t more science as the solution, just like doing the exact same thing expecting different results?, religious folks are right we have a serious spiritual crisis and it’s in the world around us. The unrecognized evangelical John Muir was onto this.

  • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

    Literate: (of a person) able to read and write.
    ***

    While you are saying that those of certain knowledge are ‘literate’ who do you know they didn’t hear this stuff from someone else? How do you know those ones you are basically insulting aren’t the ones who actually did the ‘reading’ to learn the things they know?

    ‘Facts’ and ‘data’ do not necessarily equate to truth d they? How many timeshave ppl had things figured out according to the ‘facts’ and ‘data’ only to end up finding out it was wrong?

    Listen to all the ‘facts’ and ‘data’ you wish just be care as to what you accept as ‘truth’. Otherwise those facts and information and data will lead to to follow lies.

  • Robert Conner

    When it comes to the Bible, or the theological claims, or the Rapture, or Donald Trump, the Second Cyrus, or a long list of other items, you can’t speak truth to Christian belief any more than you can speak truth to a stump.

    • jekylldoc

      Some Christian belief does not have a problem with science. Atom bombs are real. Gravity is real. Climate change is real.

      • Robert Conner

        Granted. Unfortunately that’s not the Christian belief that’s trying to take over American courts and government. As I suspect you well know.

        • jekylldoc

          I think you will find that big money (e.g. the Koch brothers) has more to do with the takeover than Christianity ever did or ever will. Our Dear Leader is not anyone’s idea of a Christian, but he knows from donors.

          • Robert Conner

            Donald Trump is a sleaze ball opportunist as are the majority of Republicans whose real constituency is Big Corporations, be it fossil fuels, pharma, whatever. The social policy wing of the GOP is a religious cult from the ground up and has been steadily undergoing that transformation since Ronny RayGun opened to door to evangelical End Timer loons. The social base of the GOP consists mostly of racists and Bible lickers.

          • jekylldoc

            Well, I wouldn’t put it quite like that, but in essence, spot on.

          • liberalinlove

            Lol!

          • beaminup

            What you are doing with your Soros funded regime change is terrifying. I have heard it said that the way you democrats operate is very similar to the way that Hugo Chavez took over in Venezuela. I find your propaganda terrifying, because there are far too many people who believe the lies you sell.

          • beaminup

            George Soros and Tom Styer spend more money to influence your mind and destroy our government than anything you imagine the Koch brothers have done. It is frighteningly amusing how you are blind to the demons in your own closet. Frightening in the fascist take over sort of way.

          • jekylldoc

            I’d love to see the evidence. Read “Dark Money”. it will open your eyes.

        • beaminup

          It is the left who is trying to take over the courts and government. We have a bunch of rogue federal judges mostly appointed by Obama and Clinton, who protect Obama’s unconstitutional legacy by claiming that what was done unconstitutionally with executive orders, can not be constitutionally undone with executive orders. The absurdity of what you claim is profound, given the facts.

    • davidt

      Curious no one seems to have any answers to the obvious. If two people are disagreeing vehemently angerly intellectually emotionally scientifically
      “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”

      I would say we have a mutual agreement. Opposites held in tension singular.

  • Regressives can spout lame insults like this forever. The truth is that regressives are slaves to authority, not literate. The authorities tell them what to believe about climate and they fall in line like little storm troopers. Some of us are truly literate in that we read both sides of the scientific debate and can make up our own minds. The scientific evidence against anthropogenic climate change is overwhelmingly good to anyone who can think for himself.

    • jekylldoc

      There is no scientific evidence against anthropogenic climate change. No other candidate explanation of rising temperatures can explain why the largest rises come at night. No other candidate explanation can explain why the upper levels of the atmosphere have actually cooled. The disaster is real. The predictions have been confirmed and continue to be confirmed and will continue to be confirmed. Get your head out of your ego and face facts.

      • beaminup

        Bologna. There are decades of failed doomsday predictions to back up what Roger said. And the climategate debacle where charlatan ‘scientists’ were caught cooking the books to hide the fact that their data did not lead to their predetermined conclusions. So what did these bastions of the science world do. They took their graphs that had already been calibrated to give temperature from tree ring data, and truncated the graphs where the tree rings diverged. Then they spliced in the actual temperature data, and smoothed the graph to hide what they had done. https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

        But if you weren’t a Climate Change cultist, you might already know this.

    • Robert Conner

      So, “truly literate” Roger, where did you get your Ph.D. in climatology?

      • beaminup

        Where did you get your degree in history denial. Literally decades of failed doomsday scientific predictions from arrogant fools like yourself to back up his claim. If you weren’t religiously addicted to your belief rather than, as you claim, led by science and data, you would try to prove me wrong. I dare you go back to the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s try to prove me wrong. show me where the doomsday predictions actually came true. You can’t because you are a fraud like all the other chicken littles pretending that, by golly, this time the sky is going to fall.

        You would have been better served to study history than the histrionics you believe is truth.

    • liberalinlove

      Do you enjoy your angry diatribe.

    • therealjeaniebeanie

      I can’t speak for anyone else’s experience, but no one told me what to believe. Belief really has nothing to do with it. I read a bunch of books and climate change websites for several years and was persuaded by the evidence. That was *after* I had long spouted the climate science skeptics’ lines. Once I did the research myself, I could tell science from ideology.
      Actually, the one person who tried to tell me what to believe was my brother, who is enamored of junk scientists like Bjorn Lomborg and who initially influenced my opinions, before I actually started reading actual climate scientists’ work for myself. (Of course, he’s a business school professor and not a scientist at all, but that didn’t stop him from writing a best-selling climate change denialist book.)

      • beaminup

        Perhaps the reason you have been buffaloed is because in all of your studies you failed to go back and actually verify how many of the doomsday predictions came true. The charlatan scientists always move the pea under the shell changing their story. Just like they fiddled with the data at NOAA to force the pause out of the data.

        I challenge you to look at historical predictions of what was supposed to happen. I also challenge you to read up on Mike’s Nature Trick and Keith Briffa’s Science trick. Every time I start looking into climate science and the current hysteria I find that it almost all traces back to the endocrinologists community and their failed graphs.

        • jekylldoc
          • beaminup

            Skepticalscience.com? Really? You are shooting for low fruit. There are many problems with the 97% consensus paper produced by a trained by the Australian cartoonist, John Cook. Not that it really matters in this argument, but do you know what he does in his free time? He fantasizes himself as some sort of Nazi. https://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/08/skeptical-science-authors-like-to-pose.html

          • jekylldoc

            beaminup – I really don’t care if every source is airtight. There were 10 more that I did not copy the link to. The insurance industry, which has actual money involved, has concluded to its entire satisfaction that GHG’s are warming the earth and the climate is getting worse. You have this goofy claim that climate disasters are not real because some predictions were made that did not come true, but the fact is the average forecast by climate models has been a really good predictor, as the assessments showed.

            I am happy to bet you $1000 that temperatures will continue rising over the next 5 years, or 10 years, or any time frame that does not involve concerted policy effort to turn the problem around. You talk big, but the facts are strongly against you.

          • beaminup

            I never said anything about climate disasters. You assume too much. Climate disasters have been happening since before we came along. CO2 is plant food. it is a disaster when there is less of it.

            Scientists have gotten the science wrong on CO2 more than one scientist and engineer has pointed this out.

            You simply do not have enough data yet to make the assertions you are trying to make about the climate. Computers have not been able to process the data and it has not been good enough for you to make the kinds of predictions you are making.

            How much do you know about computers and computer science?

      • jekylldoc

        Bjorn Lomborg’s analysis is still tenable. He did not deny the science, but claimed that cost-benefit analysis justifies doing little to nothing about it. He is wrong for several reasons, but science denial is not one of them.

  • Doc America

    How will redistributing wealth solve climate change, though?

    • momsaid

      Obviously, it won’t. The key strategy is to watch and wait for a natural disaster, blame it on climate change, then regale and shame the ‘rich’ and the ‘deniers’ for not sharing ENOUGH of their wealth. Move the goal posts, set up a straw man as place kicker, and go on their merry ways.

      • Doc America

        Obviously, rich countries prepare better for natural disasters, respond better to them, recover better from them and assist other counties better when they experience them, so redistributing wealth to poor countries to “prevent climate change disaster” is a bad idea all around.

        • jekylldoc

          And if the rich man is destroying the vineyard of the poor man, what is the right thing to do about that?

          • beaminup

            Not the case. What we are doing here is not destroying anybody else. Countries growth and economic wealth is not a zero sum game. You don’t have to take from another to get wealthy yourself. this a common fallacy.

          • jekylldoc

            beaminup – I never suggested any sort of zero sum game. We are damaging the environment of the whole planet, and that makes us guilty of the severe damage being done in the tropics. Temperatures from the Middle East to India are surging to unliveable levels of heat, outside the range of past temperatures, as a direct result of our obsession with fossil fuels. We are not taking from them, only having an effect by what we do, an effect we refuse to take responsibility for. It’s true that addressing an external harm, inflicted on others, can easily be a mutual gain, but I am not addressing relative gains or losses but simply the fact that we are harming others.

            We know the fires in Australia are reaching unprecedented levels, the suddenness and virulence of fires in California are surpassing previous extremes, the flooding in Florida is driving Miami residents to move inland in a futile attempt to escape the rising sea, the Maldives are going underwater, the Arctic Ice is melting, now including Greenland ice caps, and many other effects are being documented year after year. But the single effect that stands out is that we are killing people. That is enough for any responsible person to sit up and take notice.

      • jekylldoc

        Or maybe we could, like, measure temperatures, and check whether there are patterns that indicate the effect of Greenhouse Gases, and think the matter through. Your superficial dismissal of fact is evil.

        • momsaid

          Now that *real* scientists have noted that, although bovine populations have expanded greatly, CO2 emissions have remained steady, the alarmists will have to find another imminent disaster to tout. Denying actual facts is a sign of mental and psychological impairment. May you be well.

          • jekylldoc

            Your example does not encourage confidence. First, bovine populations are responsible for emissions of the shorter-term but more potent GHG methane, not CO2. How they are fed influences the degree of flatulence significantly, so knowing population alone is not helpful. Second, CO2 emissions have been growing, thanks to “other countries”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
            but the critical variable is cumulative excess CO2, which would continue to grow if the world cut emissions by half. Not sure where you found your “real” scientists, but I can guess who is paying them.

          • Chari McCauley

            How about the world’s on fire! And, not just California. Also, the ocean reefs are dying.

          • momsaid

            Most of the fires in both places were set by humans. Shall we ban humans?

          • Chari McCauley

            Both places? How about Australia, Brazil, Africa, not to mention the volcanic rebellion going on. We will let Mother Nature decide whether or not to ban humans.

            Cancer seems to be everywhere now, too.

            I forgot the earthquakes,…getting old.

          • momsaid

            I was referring to Australia and Cali, but of course there are troubles throughout the world. Fires that Obama, et al blamed on ‘climate change’ were actually SET by people. They haven’t backtracked and shamed the arsonists as yet, which puzzled me until I realized that the enemy must be portrayed as a collective, not an individual or small number of people.

            I do not, however, imply nor aver that people caused the volcanoes to erupt.

          • You seem to be misunderstanding the issue at a fundamental level. No one is talking about climate change causing spontaneous fires. It is about the way drier weather contributes to their spreading more severely and being harder to bring under control.

            I wonder how many people reject the mainstream scientific consensus on this and other issues because they haven’t paid attention to what is actually being claimed.

          • beaminup

            You seem to misunderstand that it is not climate change that is the cause of the fires, but uneducated environmentalists who refuse to allow forest managers to do anything about dead wood. It is directly attributable to people like you who think you are doing something great, but just like those who didn’t know that asbestos was killing people, you and others like you are the cause of the problem. Dry years are inevitable, if you do nothing to keep the fuel down, of course you are going to have huge fires. The native Americans understood this and would do controlled burning of their surroundings. It also made it easier to see an attacking tribe, but it also made fires less dangerous.

            But now we have a bunch of “environmentalists” who are endangering us all in their not smartness.

          • Judgeforyourself37

            On that we agree.

        • Scott

          My greatest issue with the climate change debate is the substitution of religious zeal for actual science. And that is on the part of those who purport to be adherents to science in the name of climate change. The science in this particular field is quite new and still developing; it is not “established” or “settled” by any rational stretch. There is no consensus as to exactly what this change will entail, nor any accurate way to predict what will happen given any action or inaction on our part as a species. In other words, nobody can say exactly how warm the planet will be in 10, 50, or 100 years. The last 16 years of data prove that. Nor what might happen should we for example reduce carbon emissions by x. Contrast this to basic physics, where a given problem can be given to scientist the world over, and the exact same answer will be reached. Predictability and repeatability are the hallmarks of established sciences. Those who blindly state that climate change will doom us all, and cutting our carbon emissions is the only path to salvation are no better than religious zealots thumping their chosen texts.
          This is not in any way an attempt to discredit the work currently being done to understand the climate on our planet. Such work is relevant and necessary. But even with the best methods available, the dataset is too incomplete to make anything other than highly educated guesses. We don’t even have accurate temperature or emissions data for more than perhaps 50 years- which is an infinitesimal period of time when talking about the earth’s climate. This also leads to a problem forecasting what the global temperature is “supposed” to be, devoid of human activity. We know the planet is far from the warmest it has ever been. We know it is far from the coolest it has even been. And we know the planet swings between extremes. But we don’t have a “control” to account for lack of human activity, so it becomes nearly impossible to say what the temperature would be should we suddenly cease to exist, let alone make a small reduction in emissions.
          While I am fully in support in emitting less pollution as a general rule, it is also wise to consider that actions do not occur in a vacuum. Should nations cut their emissions, there is a very good chance that economic activity will be harmed as a result. While a small cut in economic growth might not be inherently harmful for developed nations such as the US, developing nations are a different story. In many countries, any cut in economic activity, whether due to local measures or as a result of decreased global trade, could very well lead the local population to resort to measures that are even more harmful. In nations with rain forests, losing jobs on offshore oil platforms could lead to more forest being clearcut for cattle or burned into charcoal for example. So it is wise to carefully consider any actions before implementing them.
          I prefer to do my own thinking and would rather be convinced on the merits rather than be told to follow because of “confidence” levels. Judging from the e-mails that were leaked a few years ago, “scientists” who actively prevent people with different conclusions to be involved in the peer review process also strikes me as a bad way to do real science. If no one is allowed to challenge the conclusions, then I can’t have confidence in the due diligence of the process.
          I am not one who says that climate change isn’t happening. I am just not confident that the reasons for it have been fairly debated. There are alternative explanations and facts that provides alternative conclusions than the currently approved mantra, but they do not seem to get much discussion in my opinion. Mostly, when a possible alternative explanation is mentioned (e.g. solar output, measurement methodologies, etc.), it is swiftly swept under the rug and the discussions swings back to carbon without sufficient explanation.
          If you want an argument as to why, here’s one (but not the only one) that makes me desire more explanation and/or debate. How about the inaccuracies of models being used to predict the new “warmer” temperatures? If the models used to sustain the arguments for climate change cannot accurately predict the climate after feeding them data from a few years ago, then why should I believe them? I don’t think it would be responsible to make major decisions based on such models that aren’t accurate.
          So, I’m not being dismissive just for the sake of being contrary. What I’ve seen of the process does not give me confidence that a solid adherence to the “scientific method” has been allowed so far. The behavior of the climate change activists is what mostly prevents me from believing what they say.
          The IPCC has admitted that they got 111 of their 114 climate models wrong in the September (2013) AR5 report. That’s a 97% failure rate. Back in their original 1990 report (FAR), they predicted we’d warm by +0.3 C per decade (up to +0.5 C per decade). Actually, we’ve warmed by +0.15 C per decade since 1990, including just +0.03 of warming since the late 1990s. So their 1990 predictions were off by 100%. So why should we have confidence that their current predictions are any more (or less) accurate?

          • jekylldoc

            Your comparison to religious zeal is misplaced. I take your point that the modeling is not settled or terribly accurate. I think your reading of the IPCC report of 2013 is quite distorted, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is that we know, with a very high degree of confidence, that there is a problem being created as a side effect of ordinary economic activity, that the problem will eventually be catastrophic if not addressed, and that industry currently has almost no incentive to address it. So we could take really conservative estimates of the size and pace of the impact, and the policy that indicates would still be to address the problem with incentives. We know that industry is very effective about responding to incentives with creative and effective measures. But since currently there is so little incentive, we are dependent on other side effects, like the learning curve on solar panels, to bail us out. That is simply foolishness.

            If you know you are headed for a cliff, you don’t just keep walking because you aren’t sure how far away the cliff is. You at least slow down and try to find out.

          • Scott

            You don’t think Extinction Rebellion are religious zealots?

        • beaminup

          and you making a science discussion a religious one is what? When you will not look at any data that contradicts your point of view, it does not make your argument stronger.

      • beaminup

        Yup. Just like the burning in California and Australia. In California you have bunch of environmental nuts that refuse to allow any sort of management of the natural resources. Then when fires get lit by the aging power network every year which is not updated sufficiently to help stop the fires, and they don’t have reserves because they would rather spend it on illegals and a high speed train to nowhere, they blame it on climate change.

        In Australia, the fires were caused by arsonists, but the “environmentalists” don’t let facts like that get in the way of a good narrative. They blame climate change again.

      • jekylldoc

        Waiting for a natural disaster is not the nature of the process. Scientists know better than that. Instead they take into account the frequency of hurricanes of a given magnitude, the frequency of fires of a given magnitude, the frequency of heat waves of a given severity, etc. The insurance industry does not share your delusion that global warming is a straw man. The insurance industry is quite clear that the disasters are getting more frequent and worse, and are taking action based on it.

        https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-climate-change-and-insurance-issues

        https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-recalculate/ [paywall]

        https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/06/13/529201.htm

    • jekylldoc

      Your bias is showing. The point is not to redistribute wealth, the point is to set up a fair way of distributing the burden of solving our common crisis. The fact that you focus on redistribution shows you have your head in the sand on the part that matters.

      • Doc America

        If it’s not true that redistributing wealth is the key to solving our common rises, then redistributing wealth should never enter in to negotiations concerning our common crises. Each country may contribute what it feels is necessary and is capable of sharing and international bodies can’t overrule those decisions. Anything more than that would be risking the creation of One World Government. That government would then determine who owned what and by which means the world’s wealth may be used and then redistributed. In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to their need.”

        With all the power in the hands of a few, with no legal means to override those few, the world would descend into a feudal system. I thought progressives were smart enough to know this. If they are, then they have no reason to complain when they are called out on their totalitarian instincts. If they’re not, then they are the ones who are being used as dupes to submit their freedoms, lives and property to “The Wise Few.”

        • jekylldoc

          Doc – It does not make sense to hold the climate hostage to your fears about one world government. The is the first time humanity has faced a global public goods problem of significant cost level (the protection of the ozone layer from CFC’s was actually the first global public goods problem). As you may be aware, the problem of public goods is a market failure: due to the tendency to free ride on the sacrifice of others, leaving such a good up to the market will result in significantly less of it than would be worthwhile. One variation on this free-riding is the fingerpointing that indulges in claims that others are the source of the problem and they should be the ones to sacrifice.

          There are many ways to approach such a problem without creating a worldwide governmental structure. Treaties, agreements, swaps, lots of things can be done. But if left on an entirely voluntary basis, it is virtually guaranteeing that the ice caps will melt and the enviroment be thrown out of whack everywhere, with consequences somewhere between mere devastation and the end of civilization.

          Now, I get why some people fear a unitary world government. I even get why they might consider it equivalent to the end of civilization, though I could never regard that as plausible. But my point is that we can solve the problem without such dire consequences, and for the sake of my grandchildren I am determined that we will. Rhetoric like yours will be treated with the derision it deserves, because my grandchildren deserve both freedom and a liveable planet.

          • Doc America

            Rich countries take better care of their environments than poor ones do. They prepare for natural disasters better than poor ones do, and recover from them faster than poor ones do, and assist poor countries better when they have natural disasters than poor ones do. If we now have charlatans in government who take money earmarked for foreign assistance and use it for selfish reasons in this rich and free country, The United States, what possibility do do think there would be that the same wouldn’t happen under One World Government, the only possible mechanism other than the free market system known to history that claims to be able to solve the problem of human needs?

            It is a fact that people from poor countries are streaming into the US relatively unchecked right now. What do you think are the possibilities that this human crisis is being orchestrated by globalists to destroy the US and bring on One World Government? There are reports that the people who are crossing our southern border are being told, in their countries of origin, by electronic means and by public notice, that if they can get to the US with a child (any child), they will be taken care of, that everything is free to them because they have human needs. This disastrous event, repeated millions of times, will eventually bankrupt the US. The Wise Few are promoting it and are resisting any attempts to stop it.

            If this experiment in human self-government fails, as it is now likely to fail, by the same mechanism you claim will solve the eternal problem of human need, by simply giving to each according to his need from those who have the ability to solve their own problems of their own needs, what chances are there, do you think, that this experiment will ever again be attempted? Property is the extension of the person who worked to create, in themselves, by human ingenuity, imagination, desire and labor, ownership of that property. An international body,or a government can take from private citizens only just so much of their property, through taxation, chicanery, plunder or other means, before this governing entity actually becomes owner of the person and his property. This is commonly known as “slavery.” Another word for it is “Communism.”

            “Market Failure?” No. Not even close. Failure of individuals, working inside of human governments, to steal from producers and give to themselves. In other words, theft. The free market works just fine in keeping their production of goods and services a profitable and sustainable enterprise. What doesn’t work is do-gooders interfering with that enterprise for frivolous and unfalsifiable possible natural disasters which are unlikely to occur. I understand the human need to prevent future disasters. I also understand that scapegoating always occurs when imperfect men fail to make a perfect response to imperfections in our means to address the problems of human needs. A public relations campaign that predicts disaster and front-loads the targets for blame when natural disasters occur, is a recipe for failure and a prescription for totalitarianism.

        • martindmadrid

          “With all the power in the hands of a few, with no legal means to override those few, the world would descend into a feudal system.”
          ——————
          What makes you think it isn’t on course for this now with all the power in the hands of a few (the oligarchy and corporations)?

    • Daddy Sockdragger

      How is climate science about redistributing wealth?

  • Doc America
  • Mina Donato

    Nothing wrong with a clean planet, we should because we can and because we care what we leave to our grand children, and our friends grand children. They need sustainability. If you think this wont help, lets do it and see. Prove it. At least we’ll be able to say we tried if not.

  • davidt

    Very controversial subject. Opinions everywhere. It reminds me of the great schism of 1434 in our church breathairianism. We believe we breathe. Some wanted to take it further to we know we breathe. They were caste out as heretics completely counter to long established orthodoxy. We keep an eye out for them in case they come back.

    • Robert Conner

      Nope, not “very controversial.” Wide scientific consensus. Just fossil fuels shills paid to confuse the issue.

  • otrotierra

    Modern science also requires reading comprehension, contemplation, analysis, interpretation, and discernment. Precisely the activities U.S. Evangelicals deeply despise. That’s why Evangelicals have not merely turned their backs on science, but on the humanities and social sciences including biblical scholarship, biblical history, archival research, comparative linguistics, and the list continues.

    At the center of the U.S. Evangelical worldview is self-serving white nationalism and white power/privilege. Their own self-worship is the beginning and end of their fragile theological foundation.

    • Exactly! Willful ignorance is somehow construed as “faith, or belief.” To practice critical thinking is somehow doubting God. American Christianity has become quite a quagmire of ignorance.

  • liberalinlove

    Nobody is being asked to sacrifice their first born to affect healthy environmental living. If it is only money that keeps us from moving towards healthy air, water, food sources and consumer practices and we choose money over change then we worship the golden calf. Good stewardship is doable or else God would not have suggested it. People who double down on denying data are more interested in being right then working toward Loving Their neighbor as themselves. The poor are affected first. Clean up the environment and climate change will be affected.

  • MrsB

    Yet when it comes to abortion, the liberals seem scientifically illiterate. Saying that a baby is simply part of the mother’s body (though miraculously it has different DNA) seems to calm any unease about the mother killing “part of her body”.

    • Sorry, who are you addressing here? How does your comment relate to the meme, the quote it is from, its source, or its context?

      • MrsB

        The meme itself suggested that liberals were scientifically literate. They certainly aren’t, when it comes to abortion. That is a large enough mistake to call the rest of their scientific literacy into question. I will agree, however, that the meme was taken out of context with the entire quote.

        • The meme is clearly addressing the penchant for conservatives to claim that acceptance of mainstream science reflects “liberal bias.”

          Your own comment illustrates the problem well. Look into human chimeras and let me know whether you think that DNA is the way to determine this matter. It is possible to make a reasoned case against abortion, and most liberals oppose abortion after that point at which you are dealing with more than a clump of cells with partially different genes from the mother. Spouting half-baked attempts at a “gotcha” that misrepresent those you disagree with as well as the relevant scientific information doesn’t do anything to help make your case.

          • MrsB

            I hope you are correct in that many liberals are now opposing abortion. However, there are many who not only staunchly endorse abortion, but make abortion “rights” a primary litmus test for acceptability. For a long time, the National Democratic leadership would only endorse those candidates who agreed with these so-called rights. For that reason, while there are some Republican leaders at the national level who are “pro-choice”, there are no Democrats like them who are “pro-life”. Now, the Democrats at some state levels are endorsing this litmus test. Nebraska is one of these. But there are still liberals today who call me fearsome names once they learn that I am pro-life.

          • I think you will find that, if you actually talk with Democrats and with those who support the right (no scare quotes) for a woman to have an abortion, there is no desire to have abortion be legal beyond the stage at which we are dealing with a developed human being with brain and heartbeat, and also that the major concern when making laws that are less restrictive is that, for instance, someone who is at medical risk if they get pregnant, who is married and who took reasonable precautions to avoid a pregnancy, should be able to have access to an abortion at an early stage, as should rape victims and various others – without having to be subjected to a lie detector test or other intrusive ways of trying to determine their intentions. There are many who are pro-life who would agree. But often they adopt extreme rhetoric instead of recognizing the possibility of making common cause around a moderate, well-reasoned stance.

          • MrsB

            I regret to say that there is a demonstrated desire, at national levels, to have abortion be legal even after the person has been born. As to rape victims (and I am certainly sorry for the women, and have even gone to the police station to be there for a student who was so violated), I don’t think it is fair for the child to have to be killed because the father was a criminal and hurt the mother. In the distant past, there were women who died due to pregnancy, but with modern medicine, there is no reason at all for the mother to die. A cousin of mine was a medical missionary in a remote part of Africa, and he said he never saw a pregnancy that would have resulted in death. Out in the bush, he himself practiced a type of vaginal delivery that allowed both mother and child to live. Additionally, children are being born today very early in their development, and do live, but again, there are those today at national levels who want to have laws that prohibit caring for the newborn, if the newborn was slated for abortion. As I am certain that you know, there are many people willing to adopt. I have pro-life friends who adopted a tiny girl with an additional X chromosome. Nobody thought she would live, and her mother did not wish to care for her. Jessie did have medical issues (fed through a special port for many years, for instance) as she grew, but today a teenager, Jessie walks, and communicates, and certainly has worth as a person. There is nothing moderate or well-reasoned about killing a child.

          • What is your evidence for the claim that there is a desire for abortion after birth?

            And on what basis are you insisting that a fertilized ovum is a person, and not just a cell with the potential to develop into a person? What underpins that view?

  • Seems to me that all Christians would want to be good stewards of the Creator’s creation, regardless of our views of global climate change.

  • Brandon Roberts

    hopefully they’ll listen.

  • bill wald

    The evidence indicates that the climate has been changing for several billion years. The evidence doesn’t indicate if the change is chaotic/random, is dictated by the ‘physics’ of the universe, Mother Nature, or God. We can’t change the physical rules thus the bottom line, are humans more powerful than God and/or Mother Nature?

    Or should the human goal be to work for the best solution to the changes as they occur? In other words, not seek to control God or Mother Nature but for each nation to provide the best outcome for its citizens? Each of the three nations of North America have sufficient resources and technology for protecting their citizens from the climate changes that will occur in the lifetime of our kids and grand kids. Once we do that, we can look towards a larger time frame. There is no logical point in planning for 200 or 2,000 years because technology advances and the physical record is chaotic.

    The only god we need appease is MONEY, the civil god of this world. MONEY determines the winners and losers in the game of life, pun intended.

  • Loren Herrigstad

    Okay, we in America really need to work at, even comprehend anew, the real meaning of liberal.

    It does not simply mean “Left,” as too many Americans misconstrue it. As this dictionary definition below notes, liberal primarily means being open-minded, free from preconceptions, ideologies and narrowness in thinking or outlook . . .

    lib’er-al
    “I.a [adjective]. 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad, enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed. II.n [noun]. 1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action.”
    — Webster’s Dictionary, 2006 edition

    In the rest of the world, while Conservative still means “Right,” Progressives or Democratic Socialists are “Left” (often simply referred to as “the Left”), and Liberals are actually considered Moderate or Centrists, because they are the most open-minded, accepting and inclusive of all on most political spectra or spectrums.

    So, by world definitions and understandings, “Being open to data, facts, and science” does in fact make one liberal, as well as literate. Really, outside America, the two in fact mean much the same thing.

  • CO2lover

    Climate is always changing, but man has very little influence other than the Urban Heat Island effect. It,s not CO2

  • Tom Moran
  • Brent Michael

    Oh, the irony!

  • jekylldoc

    My point was only that the “non-truncated” graph clearly shows that temperatures turned upward after the end of the period examined by the researchers. I don’t know whether they did something illegitimate or just focused on a particular period for some sensible reason. Nor do I care. If it was malfeasance, they should be held responsible by peers. This is one set among thousands of data examinations. Please point me to a single one that refutes AGW.

  • Robert Conner

    Why am I ROFLing? The Creation Museum, Ark Exhibit, “seed money,” “slain-in-the-spirit,” Armageddon food bucket, Jesus-Coming-Back-to-Israel, Liberty “University” Christians? You’re killing me, Professor.

    • I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this comment…

      • Robert Conner

        What seems obvious to a lot of unbelievers is that the Christian commentariat here has no real comprehension of the Christian “base,” the mega-church herd, the truck nuts with their bumper stickers, the gun nuts for Jesus, the millions who buy the drivel from Christian publishing, or the millions tuning in to listen to the prosperity scamvangelists. Or have you never heard of Paula White? Robert Jeffress?

        The country’s confronted with a major political party that’s morphed into a cult, a cult populated by dupes.

        https://new.exchristian.net/2019/01/the-second-cyrus-and-his-court-eunuchs.html

        • Of course I have. But you commented on a post from 2016, asking why you’re laughing, saying I’m killing you, and it still isn’t clear what I wrote that you’re addressing.

          • Robert Conner

            It’s 2020 and there are still Christian bloggers and preachers who think they’re talking to rational people? Case in point, evangelicals and Catholics who, three years in, think Fat Donny won’t throw them under the bus with his ex-wives, ex-cabinet members, ex-creditors, and ex-lawyers. The love affair between evangelicals and Trump is really just the culmination of a long process of stupefying that started when the Moral Majority camel got its nose in the GOP tent. Do the religulous leaders toadying to Orange Führer really think he won’t drop them as quickly as he dropped Roy Cohn with AIDS once they’re no longer of any use? Talk about ignoring “data, facts, and evidence”! Is there really anyone asking people who are so globally stupid they couldn’t spot Fat Donny from a mile away to go figure out the implications of global climate change?

  • Jamin Andreas Hübner

    There are often just just too many cultural norms, narratives, and mechanisms of resistance to break through the echo chamber. I discuss this in the first half of Deconstructing Evangelicalism: A Letter to a Friend and a Professor’s Guide to Escaping Fundamentalist Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/099059436X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9zKoEbJK91V87