Naive Preachers Preaching to the Vulnerable?

I had the following exchange of comments with the Pastor or one of his Deacons of the Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church which claims to be a  multi-cultural and welcoming congregation of loving persons.

Among the activities mentioned on their website are  “Discussion groups, support groups, educational programs and classes”

The exchange of comments, or at least the part that was not spammed can be seen at  http://dmuuc.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%e2%80%9cwe-are-all-stewards-of-our-earth%e2%80%9d-10-10-10-in-camp-springs-md/

The full exchange including my answers can be seen below.

I must assure you all that I am not anti religion. Although brought up in a strict religious atmosphere (and the less said about that the better), I do not practice any religion, but respect the right for anyone to practice and believe what they wish, and I hope that they are happier for it;

EXCEPT!

When the discourse gets political and on a subject that effects not only the congregation, but me and the rest of the people in the world!

It is here that I draw the line!

Hence this post, and if it is to be construed as an attack on the Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church,  then so be it!

What has got up my nose is that the pastor of this church is preaching the same old AGW nonsense and Al Gore type half truths to the congregation and as you will see below- cannot face up to facts which disprove what they are saying.

I believe the following:

1. The church generally should keep out of politics, and AGW is definitely a political subject.

2. A pastor of a church has a duty of care to preach only the truth (although I admit that could be arguable) but at least should not try to preach questionable science and half truths. Check this sermon for instance.  http://www.dmuuc.org/lay/climatechange.html

3. Intermingling politics, some unproven theories of science (aimed at scaring the congregation) as well as half truths, is simply irresponsible/malevolent and/or immoral and I believe in anyones language, definitely unethical.

So please read our exchange, I make no apology for my provocative questions and the use of my blog for recording the conversation as an incentive to think twice before spamming my comments.

As the church blog was headed “We are all Stewards of our Earth”, (A very reasonable statement by the way) I asked the following question as to why they should not be running after the worlds real problems.

“Better get stewarding then instead of running after the life giving gas CO2!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

I then received the following reply 
 

“People can be ignorant about CO2, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem.Read the Science of 350 (350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. ) here: http://www.350.org/en/about/scienceFrom Earth System Research Laboratory http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/A <2 min. video, Jonathon Porritt, Founder Director of Forum for the Future, explains how and why scientific consensus was reached on the issue of Climate Change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_IEfZRqYQU (The evidence is more and more certain…. Vast majority of the world’s scientists have signed on to [it]…. Clear signals that it’s going to get worse…. That’s the way the scientific method actually works.)”

 

Well time to alert this person that what he is saying is not only not true, but there is a large body of learned people who do not think so either. And then a brief discourse on the life giving gas CO2 and how one should approach the proving of a hypothesis. 

Now I do not necessarily expect people to agree with me, but if they are going to disagree, at least they should try and address the points I am making. In fact if they do not give a reasonable answer, it shows that they have accepted things at face value and never actually thought through the logic.

“What scientific consensus?

These links have lists larger than that of the IPCC contributors.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

The reason that there is so much disagreement is  because scientific process has not been followed at all.

Lets take the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming ” hypothesis for a start.

The scientific  process to turn this into something like very likely would be.

1. List all hypothesis which fit the known data. (I can think of a number including the above which do)

2. Look for factors which show each hypothesis does not fit the data so you can eliminate it from the list

3. Look for factors which disprove any hypothesis that are on the above list.

4. Try and reconcile or disprove the disproving factors.

At that point your hypothesis will enjoy the status of being the best hypothesis for the known facts.

5. Then start looking for empirical evidence that explain the causation link contained in the hypothesis.

I would respectfully point out that the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” has barely got past 1. on the above list.

Now frankly, I normally wouldn’t worry one way or the other about some half baked scientific theory. Evolution and tectonic plate theories all went through the above process.
But why I am demanding some reasonable proof for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming”  hypothesis is that because of my expertise in economics, I can see that the IPCC  CO2 emission reduction demands will have the same effect on us as if we ran out of fossil fuels completely within a short time frame. In other words there will be  economic collapse which means starvation for us and our families.
This is someone else who has come independently to the same conclusion but says it better than I can.
http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/global-warming-scare-industry-suppresses-benefits-of-co2

This is the case of a half baked scientific theory threatening to effect me personally, so at that point my tolerance is exhausted.
My economic expertise also allows me to recoil in disbelief when I read so called “authoritative” reports such as the one by Nicholas Stern and I believe that the IPCC also exaggerates and claims proof where there is none. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/upenncross.pdf

If I was religious I would say that CO2 upon which all life depends is God’s gift of life to us and the world.
A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv I read recently, up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.), 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)

If there is no proof for AGW then it makes a lot of sense to run about remedying the things that do effect us, such as water contamination, particulate air pollution and heavy metals, (just to name a few)

Cheers

Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

ps these comments are also reproduced in my other blog http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers will be interested to read your reply”

 

 

Well admittedly this must have stunned the pastor and his deacons because it was a number of days before a reply was published.

“Race Dowling permalink October 7, 2010 10:52 am

@rogerthesurf

petitionproject:

“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”, and

Logical fallacy: Appeal to false authority. The opinions of scientists who are not climatologists aren’t any better than the opinions of anyone else. A phD in physics does not qualify one’s opinion on climate change. Any purported physicist worth anything knows this and will not comment.

climatescienceinternational:

“It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.”

Logical Fallacy: Argument by selective observation (aka, Cherrypicking), appeal to coincidence, argument by generalization. The change over a ten year period is irrelevant.

“We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change”

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to false authority, argument by laziness, appeal to widespread belief, argument by dismissal. The belief of economists, policymakers and business leaders has no bearing on the outcome of the scientific process, nor the quality of scientific peer review.

scienceandpublicpolicy:

Logical Fallacy: Similar to all of the above, too numerous to list.

Your argument:

“But why I am demanding some reasonable proof for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming”

Logical fallacy: Non Sequitur, red herring. It does not matter whether global warming is anthropocentric or not. What matters is whether it is happening and what we as humans can do about it.

Examiner:

“Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination”

Logical fallacy: Argument by scenario. It doesn’t matter what the motives of scientists are regarding global warming. What one must do is show that the peer-review process is somehow faulty or was not performed according to standards.

Your comments:

“If I was religious I would say that CO2 upon which all life depends is God’s gift of life to us and the world. A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv I read recently, up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.), 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You have an ill-formed opinion based on fallacious arguments. A partial listing of all the logical absurdities in this statement would place me over the character limit.

1. The CO2 concentration in a greenhouse has no bearing on the climate effects of CO2
2. Find me one qualified scientist in the field of climatology who agrees with you in a published paper.
3. The scientific process provides evidence specifically tailored to eliminate bias.

You probably don’t believe that your argument has been completely shredded. If you wish to embarrass yourself further, please reply to this comment.”

 

 

Well one can certainly see,  by his logical and reasoned approach,  that Race Dowling  understood my earlier comment NOT!

He was obviously more intent on closing me down, understandable because his congregation would have been reading this as well, but in a dilemma because he knows I am publishing the conversation elsewhere, so he doesn’t want to spam me.

But not a problem, I think I have done enough homework to answer all his concerns adequately. Especially the one about peer-reviewed science.

This following answer waited a number of weeks after I posted it, waiting for moderation and eventually was not published on Race Dowling’s website. Admittedly it was a bit difficult to answer seeing as how it was far more reasonable and factual than Race’s first reply.

“Goodness, the good pastor must have appealed to his congregation to find someone who thought they could answer my comment.

Race Dowling

“Logical fallacy: Non Sequitur, red herring. It does not matter whether global warming is anthropocentric or not. What matters is whether it is happening and what we as humans can do about it.”

Your key statement is incorrect.  It should read Logical fallacy: Non Sequitur, red herring. It does not matter whether global warming is anthropocentric or not. What matters is whether it is happening and IF we as humans can do ANYTHING about it.

Now apart from that, if you wish to have some standing in front of my readers, I suggest you start finding some authorities to back all your unsupported statements. My readers will notice that you have not cited a single authority.

Note for instance, ” A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv I read recently, up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.), 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)” which you criticise, contains references for every assertion apart from the exhaled breath one.  If you cared to look for optimum Glass House CO2 concentrations you may have found http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
If you didn’t know about the exhaled breath concentration, then http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html outlines the same experiment we did in high school.

The thing is that scientists and politicians who are pushing this “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis first of all have the onus to prove their theory and justify their conclusions in the face of searching questions and disproving factors. It is not the other way round.

Peer reviewed papers that support my assertions?
Here are a few of many more.
All of these contradict the IPCC assertions in one way or another, AGW in general and illustrate the deficiencies of the basic scientific reasoning which should have been carried out as I described in my previous comment.


A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

– Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

– An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, 1994)
– C.R. de Freitas

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
– Heinz Hug

A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
– Henry R. Linden

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
– William Kininmonth

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis et al.

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
– Roy Clark

A sceptical view of climate change and water resources planning
(Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp. 221-226, July 2001)
– Geoff Kite

A Surfeit of Cycles (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 6, pp. 985-996, October 2009)
– William M. Schaffer

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

– A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

– Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere” (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 14, January 2010)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF)
(Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008)
– John Stubbles

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney

An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
– Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to the greenhouse effect of Earth’s atmosphere
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 40, Number 3, pp. 171-174, September 1989)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Analysing Hydrometeorological Time Series for Evidence of Climatic Change (PDF)
(Nordic Hydrology, Volume 24, Number 2-3, pp. 135–150, 1993)
– Geoff Kite

Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski

Ancient atmospheric C02 pressures inferred from natural goethites
(Nature, Volume 355, Number 6385, pp. 342-344, January 1992)
– J. Crayton Yapp, Harald Poths

Anthropogenic Warming in North Alaska?
(Journal of Climate, Volume 1, Issue 9, pp. 942–945, September 1988)
– Patrick J. Michaels et al.

Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas

Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
– Vincent Courtillot et al.

– Response to comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
– Vincent Courtillot et al.

Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation (PDF)
(Statistics, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2010)
– Ross McKitrick

Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal

Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1297-1310, December 1993)
– Chauncey Starr

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core
(Atmospheric Environment, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp. 2341-2342, 1988)
– Sherwood B Idso

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Is There a Greenhouse in Our Future?
(The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 59, Number 3, pp. 291-294, September 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature: What the Data Show
(Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 159-163, 1983)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon dioxide and the fate of Earth
(Global Environmental Change, Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 178-182, 1991)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (PDF)
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, Number 8, pp. 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe et al.

“If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then …forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming.”

Case for Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 19-22, May/June 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Changes in Snowfall in the Southern Sierra Nevada of California Since 1916 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 3, pp. 233-234, July 2010)
– John R. Christy, Justin J. Hnilo

Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
– J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība

Climate Change – A Natural Hazard (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
– William Kininmonth

Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues (PDF)
(La Chimica e l’Industria, Volume 1, pp. 70-75, 2010)
– Nicola Scafetta

Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
– Adrian K. Kerton

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics (PDF)
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard

– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
– Craig Loehle

Climate-change effect on Lake Tanganyika? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 430, Number 6997, July 2004)
– Willis W. Eschenbach

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, March 2007)
– Lance Endersbee

Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Climate Change Reexamined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman

Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, pp. 413, November 2009)
– Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

Climate Change — What Does the Research Mean?
(Chemical Engineering Progress. Volume 105, Number 6, pp. 20-25, June 2009)
– Michael J. Economides, Xie Xina

Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background
(Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)
– Raymond Sneyers

Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pp. 353-378, January 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 5, March 2005)
– David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

– Reply to comment by A. Robock on “Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 20, October 2005)
– David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

– Reply to comment by T. M. L. Wigley et al. on “Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 20, October 2005)
– David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
– David C. Archibald

Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12, pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
– Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447, July 2007)
– Arthur Rorsch

Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Proceedings of the ICE – Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
– David Bellamy, Jack Barrett

Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
(Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)
– Wibjorn Karlen

CO2 and Climate: a Geologist’s View (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 81, Numbers 1-2, pp. 173-198, July 1997)
– Harry N.A. Priem

CO2 and climate: Where is the water vapor feedback?
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 31, Number 4, pp. 325-329, October 1982)
– Sherwood B. Idso

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
– G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
– Craig Loehle

Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– Robert M. Carter

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186, January 2001)
– John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

 
Although CO2 can be shown to have a greenhouse characteristic in the laboratory, it is not reasonable to transfer that to the atmosphere and claim that it must be that it heats up the world in the same way. The atmosphere has many other warming and cooling things happening and anyway is more likely to respond to water vapour than anything else. Humans do not understand the atmosphere that well yet as our weather reports may well attest.
As a church man, I think you should withdraw your ad hominem remarks and look more deeply to find the true path to lead your congregation. I am not saying that you should believe anything because I say so, I am saying, trust no one and look carefully at what evidence and reasoning is laid in front of you.

As I said above, my impetus for exploring the AGW “truths” and “facts” is based on my concern for humanity. My economic expertise sees that the danger for mankind lies not in the danger of the world burning up, but in the economic privations that threaten us by the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands.

And yes, I have concern for this world, let us keep it clean and unpolluted for our children. Is CO2 a pollutant? Well maybe at about 10,000 ppmv we would be a little uncomfortable.

Cheers

Roger

Please feel welcome to visit my blog and leave a comment.
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

 

After a number of prompts on my part the following reply was made.

I’m sorry, the church blog moderator doesn’t have time to keep up with comments, thus comments will be closed for this blog. Please see the text to this sermon at http://www.dmuuc.org/lay/climatechange.html and the audio podcast will be placed on http://dmuuc.libsyn.org and a video on http://www.youtube.com/dmuuc as soon as volunteer time makes it possible.

 

Well I couldn’t resist giving the sword a final thrust and I sincerely hope Race Dowling or whoever actually read the next comment of mine, (before it was spammed),  had a little trouble sleeping that night.

 

“This conversation including my comments which have obviously been found too difficult to answer have been published at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com.
Look for your website on the links to the right or else use the search function to bring up your site comments.

I checked the sermon frankly I hope your pastor can find a shred of conscience.
For instance “Temperature measurements from around the world indicate that global average temperature has gone up 1.4 degrees in the last 150 years” ,  without mentioning the previous temperatures since the medieval warm period, or since the time of Christ for that matter, is a blatant half truth.

I hope the pastor and the deacons can sleep at night.

Cheers
Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

 

Apart from the religious side of this conversation, I have found this is a typical response from proponents of the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming”   hypothesis.

A few such as the good pastor and Race Dowling sometimes make an attempt, and good on them for trying at least, but normally there are immediate ad hominem attacks and/or immediate spamming.

Very few seem to have any logical view of the AGW “evidence”. All claim that they are ready to accept the science because “scientists and the IPCC have proven it is fact” and refuse to consider any easily verifiable facts which disprove what they are being told by the IPCC. Sadly there is almost never any evidence of thinking or facing up to facts that contradict their “faith”

One can speculate on what drives these people. Some say it is guilt for being so wealthy. Others say it is because people just “enjoy” being scared. Is it a way for some to exert power over gullible followers and the public at large?

Another factor is that we are not told two major facts, the first being that we will never accomplish the IPCC wealth transfers and CO2 emission reductions with out DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE WORLD POPULATION. The second being that neither are we told of the economic cost to us, our families and communities of trying to meet the above wealth transfers and CO2 emission reductions. We are instead told it may cost each of us a few hundred dollars a year and besides “green” jobs will compensate for that. This simply is a gross, malicious and huge untruth. For any person with just a little understanding of economics, it will be obvious that we will actually experience economic collapse and therefore poverty and starvation. It is interesting to note that the IPCC omits any analysis of the cost of meeting their demands, and many commentators claim that “green” technology, (that will of necessity need to be funded by the tax payer), will actually cause economies to grow!

Is it any wonder that I make so many demands for proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW stands.

Besides I know enough about christian doctrine to be aware that the good pastor and Race Dowling are betraying their own philosophy. Check out what other christians think about green values.

 http://video.foxnews.com/v/4375125/beck-let-there-be-stuff

Please feel welcome to comment. I publish all comments except ones which contain obscenity or abuse. But if you wish to make a point, please some authority or carefully outline your line of thought.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Naive Preachers Preaching to the Vulnerable?”

  1. cmb Says:

    Still running, I see. lol

  2. cmb Says:

    Sorry, nothing there at this subject. What you mean is, you cannot refute a single word I wrote, not one, and are running away.

    It’s interesting to me that Mr. Dowling took the time to show you many errors in your own work, but instead of improving, you respond with hateful fictions about himself and his intent.

  3. rogerthesurf Says:

    See my comment at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/another-case-of-an-agw-supporter-being-unable-to-answer-my-perfectly-reasonable-comment/

    I suggest that you learn how to judge the facts instead of attacking the person.

  4. cmb Says:

    The above lists of concerned scientists is genuine. If you wish to show otherwise, you will need to go through the list and verify that most

    — Nope, just a few. Or are you claiming the list is not as described by the OISM? More idiot logic – a “list of 31,000” has to be MOSTLY fake names before the description is incorrect. lol

    …of the people are not real, are fakes or not qualified.

    — Already done, multiple times. The petition was gathered with the help of Frederick Seitz, another climate liar, who fabricated a letter that fraudulently copied the format of the NAS and sent it around to get his names.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

    Although I have heard numerous comments that they are fake, I have never seen any reasonable proof.

    — Perhaps you should actually go check. The OISM is a well known lie mill operating out of a barn, supporting themselves by repackaging free 60’s Civil Defense information as “how to survive a nuclear war’ and the like. Oh, and now “socialism in the schools.” lol

    Here is another list from the US senate no less.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=29040584&CFTOKEN=66840463

    Sorry, not from the Senate at all, just from Inhofe’s lieboys. Another set who have been exposed as liars years before I came along. Why don’t you ever check your facts?

    http://antipollutionrevolutioncampaign.blogspot.com/2010/01/senator-inhofes-list-of-700-dissenting.html

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Inhofe

    Golly, looks like he’s received $1,460,573 from oil and gas interests. Whod’a thunk.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/oil&gas_tools.php

  5. cmb Says:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

    A short but excellent source of bought and paid for denialist lie sites. I also particularly enjoy your own outright, despicable lies and character assassinations against those wiser and more knowledgeable than you are embedded throughout the post.

    Anxious to hear you explain why referring to a conference is an appeal to authority, but your long list of denialist lie papers is not.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      The above lists of concerned scientists is genuine. If you wish to show otherwise, you will need to go through the list and verify that most of the people are not real, are fakes or not qualified. Although I have heard numerous comments that they are fake, I have never seen any reasonable proof.
      Here is another list from the US senate no less.
      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=29040584&CFTOKEN=66840463

      I think if you wish to be objective, you will need to approach each of those peer reviewed scientific papers and analyse where they went wrong. Its no use blanketing them as lies.
      Plenty more peer reviewed published scientific papers out there that slam all aspects of AGW theory unfortunately for you.

      Judging from the reply I got, I think that church official is a friend of Greenfyres. But that is speculation I must admit. However he does not show any great wisdom else he would have addressed each point with reason and logic. Calling people names is not a sign of wisdom.

      A conference relies on academic papers to arrive at the truth. If all relevant papers are not considered, how can the truth be arrived at? Else the conference simply reflects the biases of the attendees.

  6. life style Says:

    I really liked your blog! It helped me alot…

  7. branchenverzeichnis Says:

    As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: