I had the following conversation with Father Theo at http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/this-week-in-climate-disaster-may-16-2011/
I must say that self appointed gurus of Father Theo’s ilk really do get up my nose.
He preaches with a self assumed authority and only ever quoted any sort of scientific authority after I reminded him several times that he should watch his integrity when he is writing on this very important subject.
Neither did he ever seriously read most of the links I gave him, he steadfastly insisted that I was incorrect in spite of my reference to the IPCC (his ally and master I presume).
When he did not like a reference I gave, he immediately labeled it as half truths and out of context and in spite my repeated requests for some authority or reference, steadfastly refused to enlargen on his assertion.
Father Theo, in my opinion, you are among the very worst type of people who wish to influence society. You spout out dogma and your own opinion without ever considering that you may be misled and seek to influence others in spite of your paucity in knowledge and understanding of the facts.
If you relied on the facts, you would be careful to support each one with at least one careful reference that shows you are not merely relying on your misplaced faith and prejudice.
I started off with this remark :-
“Climate science, as I understand it, predicts that climate change will bring more rainfall because of increased evaporation and because higher temperatures permit the air to hold more water vapour. Places that already have rainfall will have more rainfall. Places already prone to flooding will have larger floods. Major flood events will come closer together.”
Originally climate “scientists” predicted droughts and desertification as the climate warmed.
However the official view appears to have been modified to accomodate the weather we have been having, which ironically is more akin to the symptoms of global cooling.
Your citations don’t disprove my assertions at all. They merely address another aspect of climate change, one which I address myself in a later paragraph.
Your first cite, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-4.html
is one of several articles by the same organization dealing with different kinds of impacts predicted from climate change. They deal with flooding in a separate article: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/heavy-flooding-and-global-warming.html
The world is a large complex place. The climate is not the same everywhere. With climate change it won’t be the same everywhere either. Climate scientists have known this from the beginning.
It’s kind of obvious anyway.
Sorry, Roger, there’s no conspiracy, and no evidence of one, either.
Well I didnt remember talking about a conspiracy but seeing as Father Theo wants to deny that there is one:-
Did I mention conspiracy?
I was just pointing out that for years we were told that “Global Warming” was going to cause droughts and deserts.
Then a few years ago the term Global Warming was dropped and we were to expect “Climate Change” which included more storms, cold weather, hot weather, droughts and flooding (and maybe the climate might cool but thats because of global warming)http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html
Now the latest craze is to describe anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming as “Climate Chaos”
Well Father Theo you believe what you like. I hope it all makes sense to you.
Well have the grace to explore these sites. Why would such prominent people allow their names to be published if they did not agree with the intentions of the organisation?
And this well referenced commentary. http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Yes I know they are really a benevolent society!
When you say that “the story is changed” you imply a monolithic group of scientists all simultaneously changing their talking points to fit the evidence. You say you are not claiming a conspiracy? By definition that is exactly what you are claiming.
And it’s preposterous.
And no, the story has not changed. Perhaps your perception of it has. If you read the Hadley Centre report carefully, which you evidently didn’t, you will see that it refers almost exclusively to countries in the tropical or near-tropical regions of the world, where desertification is still expected. That story is the same as always.
As for the latest craze–which has been around since the George W. Bush era–to refer to global warming as climate change, I can hardly think of anything less important. Every major scientific organization of earth supports the idea of human-caused climate change as set out by the IPCC, and universally they say that world governments should start doing something about it. That’s important.
By the way, I try not to get my scientific information except from credible sources, like Science, Nature, Scientific American, NASA, NOAA and actual science news sites. Political sites more interested in taxes than science always send up a red flag to me, because it’s fairly obvious where they are coming from–and it isn’t science.
Climate science is not about politics or economics, you see. It’s about physics.
By the way, Roger, thanks for the lead to the Union of Concerned Scientist article[s]. I’ve incorporated yours and another into my blog post
Roger, I notice that your “Green Agenda” website has a number of out-of-context quotations, which, when read in context, say exactly the opposite of what they seem to say out of context. Some of those quotations, laughably, were intended as descriptions of climate change deniers tactics.And have you ever actually visited the Club of Rome website? They take climate change seriously throughout.
Well its a pity that Father Theo has very few facts that would come under the heading of physics and you can see from the above that he is quite happy to make assertions without even attempting to back himself up.
Wow my Sunday School teacher was more careful that that!
If you are going to make such statements about someones writing, it might be a good idea to include some references to support your assertions. You are not on the pulpit at the moment.
Yes I have visited the Club of Rome website and even read some of their publications.
Why would they be so interested in Anthropogenic Climate Change I wonder?
I know! Perhaps they are a charity organisation?
Well asking Father Theo to back up his wild assertions must have surprised him some. Perhaps no one has ever questioned his authority before.
Interesting that you expect Me to find the references to quotes which You are pointing out. It seems to me that you ought to be able to do so yourself if you want the quotes to have any meaning.
But the fact that you can’t is precisely the problem I have with such quote-fests in the first place. Deprived of even the ability to provide context, a person has no way of determining whether a quote is a fair expression of an idea, or even whether it was manufactured out of whole cloth–as has happened with climate denier websites on numerous occasions. I don’t find climate denier websites to be either scientific or particularly honest–they certainly seem to contradict themselves from week to week.
“Roger, I notice that your “Green Agenda” website has a number of out-of-context quotations, which, when read in context, say exactly the opposite of what they seem to say out of context.”
You are the one making the assertion as I illustrate by quoting your previous comment above.
It is therefore very reasonable for me to enquire exactly which quotations you are refering to and even expect an example where it was used in context with its proper meaning.
If you are unable to do that simple task then what am I and the readers supposed to think about your integrity?
What I would like to know though, is how you think you have the authority to preach to anyone about climate change on a public forum like this. Do you have exceptional education and experience in the subject? Do you mix with the elite and therefore know some things that other people are not privy to?
To this end to test your knowledge, would you please consider this question.
The IPCC predicts that the Greenland Ice Cap, IF it melts completely, and if a number of criteria are met, will raise sea levels as much as 7 meters.
Can you tell me what is the time frame predicted by the IPCC for the complete 7 meter rise?
Incredibly Father Theo answers again obviously off the top of his head, and he still “forgets” to try and back up any of these wild statements. One might point out that he is doing EXACTLY what he is accusing “Deniers” of doing!
The time frame for the melting of Greenland’s icecaps as set out by the IPCC? That’s an easy one. At the time of the release of the last report, the IPCC said that the issue of melting icecaps was too complex, and not enough was known about the science to make a prediction. In fact, the IPCC declined to make a prediction on this basis. The prediction they did make about sea level rise was based on the expansion of water with rising temperature.
As to your other issues, I have replied to them in my blog post “Apocrypha and Quote Mining among the Climate Deniers,” where I demonstrate that climate deniers seldom do any research at all, merely repeat each others statements without checking them in any way. And I give an example of the typical–and selective–usage of quotes by denier websites in an attempt to prove things the opposite of–or not related to–what the quotes a say–exactly as I complained of in the first place.
Gosh Father Theo,
Your knowledge, on the subject that you are displaying so much faith in, is just a tad patchy.
First of all you are incorrect, and not only are you incorrect but you made no attempt to quote an authority upon which you have relied.
Even a preacher will quote from the bible at least!
The “last report” by the IPCC?
Was that AR5 then or AR4 (2007)?
The answer to the question can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html#table-spm-3
The IPCC, once one wades through the obscure language, says that it will take “millenia” for the Greenland ice cap to melt completely.
According to The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary millenia is the plural of millenium and therefore refers to a time of MORE than 2,000 years.
In otherwords the IPCC simply are guessing. Maybe it will take 5,000 years?
I leave you to do the arithmetic.
Either way it is difficult to take seriously that the IPCC really thinks that we are in any real danger from this source.
But no, the IPCC does make a prediction, no they did not say it was too complex, no they did NOT admit there is not enough science, and yes they could not resist using some obscure language in order to do a little scaremongering?
So you got it very wrong Father Theo.
Do you really think you are qualified to preach on the subject of the unproven ” Anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis?
Yes I did take the trouble to read your blog. Thank you for the reference that you did not see fit to included in your comment.
The full text of Scneider’s quote to me is equally scary as the quote itself. The meaning is clear in the quote and not changed significantly by the full text.
So I assume that by this small amount of research on your part, you have concluded that EVERY shocking quote such as the ones I directed you to, are some sort of fabrication?
If you have a problem with the ones I refered you to via http://green-agenda.com/index.html don’t you think you should do some research to show your point rather than make a blanket condemnation?
I sincerely suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously, you should try to take a neutral view of things and take the trouble to seek out the truth.
Summary for policy makers of the 4th IPCC report has the following statement. “Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking.”
You may find the quote here, on the IPCC website: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
As you can see, this quote confirms precisely what I said. The IPCC declined to make predictions of sea level rise from melting ice sheets “because a basis in published literature is lacking.”
As for the website you frequent, I don’t have either the time or inclination to check out every quote. Quotes from international organizations talking about internationalism don’t surprise or alarm me. What other perspective do you expect from international organizations except an international one? And if you’re gullible enough to swallow a bunch of carefully edited, decontexualized quotes, go for it. Everybody is entitled to their own answers to a Rorschach test, but it doesn’t mean that what any particular person sees is the right answer.
You read Stephen Schneider’s whole interview about the problems of conveying science in 40 second soundbites and you think a few phrases joined by ellipses conveys the meaning of the interview? Those phrases convey to you that whole issue, do they?
Well, chum, if you can’t read English and understand it, then I’m helpless before your ignorance.
Great! Well at least Father Theo has actually taken the trouble to find some backing for his statement! Unfortunately he has uncovered a little contradiction in the IPCC reporting. IPCC scaremongering? I think it is!
You obviously did not read my link which was to the same organisation as yours. Together we have discovered a contradiction. On on hand the IPCC refuses to speculate on the melting of Greenland AND Antarctica, but they do speculate on Greenland’s ice cap as per my link.
Now why dont you go and read my link?
The point I am making is that the time frame is so vague, that it was not worth printing and therefore it should be construed as alarmist nonsense, which is what it clearly is.
But the alarmism works, here is wikipedia repeating the same irrelevant nonsense. They are even refering to the IPCC often enough that a normal reader may be forgiven for thinking this is official. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
You are improving in that you are finally looking for authority to back your hitherto wild statements, but what on earth does Antarctica have to do with the conversation?
Your refusal to back up your statement about the quotations on the site I sent you simply show that your mind is not open to normal reason. In other words you are some sort of preacher who refuses to refer to his bible. I would say for reasons of YOUR INTEGRITY, you should back up your statement- IF YOU CAN.
You may have some followers but this is a case of the gullible leading the gullible.
PS. Maybe you can find some authority that proves the currently unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is valid.
Alarmist would imply making dire predictions on the basis of insufficient science. The IPCC refused to do this, as the part I pointed out makes clear. On the other hand it would have been bad science to ignore what had, in fact, been studied about the issue. Therefore, the IPCC does not ignore this science, merely declines to make predictions on the basis of it.
In fact, the IPCC is far from being alarmist. They are a middle of the road outfit as my blog post about climate sensitivity makes clear. http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/climate-science-pollyannas-pessimists-the-ipcc/
Anyway, when 97% of the specialists in a discipline say there’s a problem, when you can look around everywhere and see the symptoms of the problem everywhere, it takes a special kind of fool to ignore the warning.
This comment was spammed by Father Theo. Once again we have an alarmist who unsurprisingly, cannot find truth in his or her beliefs when challenged.
You seem unable to learn anything new that will allow you to break out of your prejudices.
First of all you steadfastly refuse to read any of the links I give you and secondly you are making another unsupported statement.
Where do you get this 97% figure from.
Yes I know it is often bandied about by people such as you, and I know where it comes from, but DO YOU?
Now you call me a fool, but I do not make unsupported statements and am not taken in by poor quality research which claims to be scientific.
What symptoms of Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming do you refer to?
Do you think your blog with its lack of proper references can be possibly construed as an authority?
In my opinion, only a fool would preach on a public forum such as this when he has such little understanding of the issues and repeats heresay whenever it agrees with his faith.
I came accross this video. It did indeed make me think of Father Theo and his inability to find facts to counter my assertions. I could not resist leaving the following at his blog- just for his information and enlightenment of course!
Here you go Father Theo,
I thought of you when I viewed this video.
Will you have the guts and broad mindedness to view it?
Will you have the guts and broad mindedness to publish this comment?
Be a man! If you are right, you should not be afraid of dissenting opinions – you should be able to demolish these arguments with references to the truth!