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.

"Just seat of the pants, but identifying the direction of Earth from Mars, since the ..."

Which Way is Mecca from Mars?
"I would imagine the same issue may have already been addressed when it comes to ..."

Which Way is Mecca from Mars?
"Good questions, and sorry for not saying more about what's in the chapter. I think ..."

What Jesus Learned from a Samaritan ..."

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?

      • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • Robert Conner

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

  • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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 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)?

  • 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.

  • 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.