Global Warming

[badsede]

OK, what is American Papist's deal with global warming? It seems like he links to every little article out there that is contradictory to or dismissive of claims of the existence of global warming and its consequences or that it is human-caused. This is the kind of thing that really bugs me, when Catholics integrate their political ideologies

Comments

[advoir]

I think there are serious and sincere doubts both about global warming and its causes that don't get publicity because (1) media outlets are rarely/not interested in actual debate, (2) contrary facts and theories get shouted down (like those who question aspects of evolution theory), and partly because (3) questionable theories don't inspire people to vote for socialist policies, crises do.

I'm reading through Michael Crichton's State of Fear, all about the subject, and he cites a plethora of hard data and researchers whose findings directly contradict popular notions about global warming. If it weren't for his exciting fiction, I doubt anyone would've known about them.

[badsede]

There are serious doubts. There is doubt whether the historical data of temps and CO2 show rises in CO2 following or preceding rises in temperature. There are doubts aabout whether this is just one of those macro- temperature trends that a planet is going to go through when you look at time in geological terms. There are legitimate reasons to not be convinced about human-caused global warming, or to not be unreservedly convinced .. I fall into the latter

[advoir]

You covered a lot of things I wanted to write after I had already posted my above comment. I absolutely agree that care of this planet, especially for the Christian, is a moral imperative. (Not to mention all the should-be-obvious practical reasons, some of which you listed.) The dispute over global warming should not be a deciding factor on whether we ought to seriously rethink our behaviour

[badsede]

(1) It was acceptable for the Bush administration to utilize the public's fear of attack against a possible threat, particularly since that fear was not the only reason to deal with it. Likewise, it is acceptable for environmental lobbyists to utilize the public's fear of economic collapse and extinction against a possible threat, particularly since that fear is not the only reason to deal with it.I don't think I agree. On the most basic level, the two are only equivalents if the threat of global warming turns out to be manifestly false .. because quite frankly, the threat that was used to stir up fear in Iraq was manifestly false

[yechezkiel]

There are really no credible scientists who deny the existence of global warming.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love how people who don't even study the relevant disciplines think they can say this.

[badsede]

I love how people who no idea what other people have or have not studied dismiss them without addressing a single thing that they've said. An ad hominem based on ignorant assumptions about the speaker is the worse kind.

You know, I could be wrong. Things could have changed since the years that I spent in the energy efficiency industry, living this stuff every day. And while usually I can put up with your arrogant disdain for all the others that you feel intellectually superior to, today I just don't have the patience.

[yechezkiel]

That industry isn't the primary path for studying climatology--usually people in the environmental industries assume the problem, they don't study it (I'm marrying someone who works in that industry and a lot of my fellow graduates are in sister industries). Especially in the paleoclimatology community, but also in the modern, there are serious doubts about whether or not we are in a long-term warming trend. The whole "scientific agreement" jive that is rammed in heads by media all day long is created by the unanimous agreement of governmental environmental agency studies... studies which, surprisingly, justify the existence of the bureaucracies that initiate them

[badsede]

My industry was not a primary path for the study, but it brought us into continual contact with those who did and with their work. I remember when there was a lot more doubt about the existence of a global warming trend, I remember when the tenor among those guys changed, when the outright deniers started being quiet and only the doubters were left.

But denial and doubt are not the same thing. There are credible scientists who *doubt* that we are in a long-term warming trend, but that is something quite different from actively denying it. But even still, the science was really only an incidental aspect of my post. Doubt is what my post is all about; doubt and ideological consistancy in acting in the face of doubt.