Climate Change and Conservatism

[ChessPlayer]

Ok so let's break down a few of the discussions currently being had regarding this subject. I have taken the liberty of breaking this down into a few major subgroups.

1) Personal experience vs. scientific studies 

Ok so this has come up a number of times throughout this discussion (notably by ARGOSSY, Just Passing Thru and Alive). As I (and others) have mentioned, personal experience is often ineffective as a tool by which to judge climate change. For example, I live in the northern US which is currently about to experience/has already experienced some of the earliest snows and drops in temperature on record. Now some people would argue that this negates the idea of global warming. However, such an argument would have two flaws. Firstly, weather is not equivalent to climate. Second, individual experience does not equate to studies completed over the whole Earth examining global trends. This is not to mention claims of human eyes being able to detect "not a millimeter" of sea level change. Humans brains have a tendency to accept things that conform to a worldview (also known as confirmation bias). This is why peer-review and a second set of eyes in addition to data are integral to climate research and is why scientific studies should be considered significantly more reliable and valid than first hand accounts.

2) We should wait ten years/it isn't that bad/global warming is good

I would frame all of these at mitigation arguments. Alive has probably been the one to talk most about this approach. The problem is that the science indicates that waiting 10 years is unacceptable if we wish to continue to live in a world that resembles our current one. It also happens to be an argument that was used ten years ago and just results in the can getting kicked further and further down the road. The next two arguments admit that climate change is happening but may say it is not that bad. Those who argue that it is not that bad have simply not read the science on this. Study after study indicates that this level of CO2 is prevalent in mass extinction events and that our planet is losing biodiversity due to climate change. Some on this thread have even mentioned the argument that there is global greening. I dealt with this a bit on page four of our discussion here but the problem is that this only considered CO2 in isolation. While CO2 is used by plants to produce oxygen considering only CO2 in isolation ignores diminishing returns and the fact that plants need other nutrients to survive and are negatively impacted by climate change as a result. For more on this see the Tahiti study from page four which found plant biodiversity went down as a result of climate change.    

3) A global conspiracy of scientists/governments 

This argument assumes a lot and has no basis in evidence. Are there international agreements regarding climate change? Of course. These are voluntary agreements. For example, the US entered the Paris Climate Accords under Obama and then withdrew under Trump. Some countries simply did not enter the accords (although notably this was because they thought the treaty did not do enough to combat climate change). However, international agreements made by voluntary member nations do not constitute some wild one world government conspiracy. Anyone claiming that scientists all over the world are somehow in collaboration to deceive the public would not to provide evidence and a rationale as to why that is the case. The burden of proof lies on the conspiracy to prove the conspiracy exists.

4) Theological Objections - God Sets the Limits

This is the first theological objection presented. The argument stems from the scriptural concept that God has set boundaries by which the physical world must abide. Of course, Christians agree with this. However, I would object to any hyper-literalism regarding some of the passages presented. For example, JustPassingThru has talked multiple times about passages from the Proverbs and Job. Notably, he mentions Proverbs 8:29 in which it states "when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command." Now, I addressed this line earlier but I will do so here again. This is in the broader context of the writer praising God's creative power and control over creation. However, hyper-literalism is not an effective way of understanding this passage. If we were hyper-literal about this passage as JustPassingThru is indicating we would deny the fact that seas dry up and that man has impacted nature by creating harbors, damns, seawalls, etc. That is not to mention natural events like sea surges. Even JustPassingThru seems to understand this and slightly backpedals when he says this in his discussion with thomas t: 

7 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

Kinda overlooked when God "set the limit" didn't ya, ...how do you know that the present coastline of North Frisia, Germany today was not the limit He set in the beginning?

Now the problem with this line of reasoning is that you could continue it ad infinitum. For example, using such a hyper-literalistic interpretation one could also say that the limit could be just below the tip of Mt. Everest. This hyper-literalism simply fails to grasp the passage in context and is simply a poor hermeneutical and theological argument. 

5) Theological Objections - Christ is Coming/The World Doesn't Matter 

Several people have brought this up notably JustPassingThru, Alive and ARGOSY. While all Christians concur that Christ will indeed return again in glory, Christ reminds us that not the angels in heaven nor us here on Earth know the day or the hour of His return. In the meanwhile, Christ encouraged us to love and care for the least among us and to be good stewards. By ignoring the dangers climate change poses to our fellow man and to God's creative work we do neither of these things. Arguing that the physical world does not matter at all was the root of many of the heresies of the Early Church and was one of the major things the Church sought to address.  This theological "objection" is a poor excuse for not taking care of God's creation and our fellow man.   

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

Do you read Biblical Prophecy

This one:

Matthew 24:36 But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

...I'm afraid you are the one that "someone" has given you the story that we are NOT at the end of the "Times of the Gentiles and the Dispensation of Grace,"

I'm in my 70s.    I've been hearing all my life that we're at the "end times", just a few years away.  Never happens.  Jesus was right; no one will know the time until it happens.

 

 

[thomas t]

14 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

all of this fuss and bother

[...]

so what is all this fuss about

[...]

it's the Holy Spirit inside of me is laughing:

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

 

Hi JPT,

I'm no heathen.

fuss and bother? A vain thing? The Marshall Islands for instance, also in the Pacific, are experiencing severe droughts and they have a problem with fresh water supply. Click here for source (UN). It says as climate changes, weather becomes more extreme. But these Islands are small and they don't have enough fresh water to compensate for all sorts of droughts.

14 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

evolution, [...], gender confusion, socialism and globalism, ...rampant on the earth today

as you've noticed, this thread is about climate change, so could you stay on topic, please?

 

14 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

they lie in wait to deceive; 

climate change is no lie. It's reality.

 

14 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

let God control the climate

lame excuse. Man has no mandate to destroy.

 

14 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

announce the Gospel

When non-believers see how badly nature is treated by Christians, it's questionable if they will listen to these Christians in the first place, I think.

 

Thomas

 

 

[ARGOSY]

On 10/11/2019 at 9:26 AM, thomas t said:

Hi JPT,

I'm no heathen.

fuss and bother? A vain thing? The Marshall Islands for instance, also in the Pacific, are experiencing severe droughts and they have a problem with fresh water supply. Click here for source (UN). It says as climate changes, weather becomes more extreme. But these Islands are small and they don't have enough fresh water to compensate for all sorts of droughts.

as you've noticed, this thread is about climate change, so could you stay on topic, please?

 

climate change is no lie. It's reality.

 

lame excuse. Man has no mandate to destroy.

 

When non-believers see how badly nature is treated by Christians, it's questionable if they will listen to these Christians in the first place, I think.

 

Thomas

To use individual examples like the Marshall Islands without excellent statistics is to me appealing to emotion not logic. 

Logic says every location on the planet will statistically reach its most extreme weather even without climate change. 

Eg where you are living has its rainiest year in a hundred years, it's driest year in a hundred years, it's hottest year in a hundred years, it's coldest year in a hundred years, it's stormiest year in a hundred years, most tornadoes in a hundred years. Highest storm surges flooding coastlines in a hundred years. Rainiest day in a hundred years. Hottest day in a hundred years. Coldest day in a hundred years. 

On average, every ten years one of those situations should statistically occur in your location. To ascribe climate change to these extreme moments is just being statistically unaware. 

Every century, statistically one of those disasters should occur; being the worst in 1000 years at your location.  So if you are looking at 100 widespread locations EVERY YEAR there should be on average one location on earth experiencing its WORST MOMENT IN 1000 YEARS. 

Taking this logic further, if you are looking at 1200 locations, every month, one of these locations should be experiencing its worst disaster in 1000 years. (maybe hottest day, maybe worst storm etc) 

In the information age, it's easy to find these locations, and ascribe climate change to it. Journalists can have one big story every month, worst drought in 1000 years for the Marshall Islands. Worst spring tide storm surge in 1000 years flooding the coastline of LA etc etc Yet the weather disaster is actually statistically expected even without climate change. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by ARGOSY

[thomas t]

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Logic says every location on the planet will statistically reach its most extreme weather even without climate change. 

Hi Argosy, here we agree.

Let's have a look at the global temperature increase (see below):

So, global temperatures increasing, there will be *hot* weather extremes, in my opinion. Very logic, isn't it?

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Eg where you are living has its rainiest year in a hundred years, it's driest year in a hundred years,

Actually, Germany is quite blessed with a moderate climate. Normally. Nevertheless, we're having problems with drought related to temperatures getting warmer. See photo below: (source in German language click here, it's a public news channel.)

Germany is sad that their forests look like that nowadays.

 

Thomas

 

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

Hi Argosy, here we agree.

Let's have a look at the global temperature increase (see below):

So, global temperatures increasing, there will be *hot* weather extremes, in my opinion. Very logic, isn't it?

Actually, Germany is quite blessed with a moderate climate. Normally. Nevertheless, we're having problems with drought related to temperatures getting warmer. See photo below: (source in German language click here, it's a public news channel.)

Germany is sad that their forests look like that nowadays.

 

Thomas

 

 

The graph appears to show rising temperatures the whole time, but that is a false impression, because it is referring to global anomalies from a Norm. It  shows that before 1950 there was global cooling, temperatures were below the 30 year average. 

1950 to 1980 was relatively stable, since then the anomaly has only averaged about 0.4 °c above the 30 year norm. 

That's hardly significant. So you use a graph showing this upward trend, but your average reader wouldn't realise it represents global cooling before 1950. And only an average of 0.4 °C higher after 1980. 

And you are applying a global graph to Germany and showing pictures of a patch of dead trees. Thats emotive imaging. Forests have always had dead tree patches, the alternative is a fantasy land forest with eternal trees. So your picture means nothing. 

And there is no comparison over 4000 years, I mean we managed to get out of an entire ice age without human intervention, which involves far more dramatic temperature rises than the graph indicates. Who knows if the current 0.4 degree average anomaly over the last 40 years is even caused by humans considering we have had much more impressive improvements in global warming via past natural causes. 

So the example you use far from being convincing. Is a perfect example of the kind of badly presented and over exaggerated information presented. It's not done deliberately, you didn't do it deliberately but it's cool to jump on the bandwagon of popular causes, and it's natural for humans to be swayed by confirmation bias. Net effect is a neverending media stream of confirmation bias from cool guys following a trendy cause. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by ARGOSY

[thomas t]

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

but your average reader wouldn't realise it represents global cooling before 1950.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The graph appears to show rising temperatures the whole time, but that is a false impression,

 

actually, the graph shows that temperatures today are hotter than decades ago. That's my point. Nothing more.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

[The increase in temperture]'s hardly significant.

for the forests, all that matters is how the trees are experiencing the climate change that you deem hardly significant... scientists see a link between rising temperatures and damaged trees (see second source in my last post, see also the linked source of this post. Both in German language however, I should research to find something in English language?). If for the trees, a rise by 0.6 degrees is partially deadly, then we see more patches of dead trees simply.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

And you are applying a global graph to Germany

see graph below

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

showing pictures of a patch of dead trees. Thats emotive imaging. Forests have always had dead tree patches

see second graph below, it shows damaged trees in red colour, trees in risk of being damaged, and trees that are ok (green colour). Source (click here, see page 9).

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

So the example you use far from being convincing. Is a perfect example of the kind of badly presented and over exaggerated information presented.

I don't think so, I didn't exaggerate. I've shown the truth. I tried to demonstrate the situation of forests in Germany which is where I live today. I hope, you'll find the information of this post more convincing now that you see scienists' evaluation on trees.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

media stream of confirmation bias from cool guys

I'm not cool. No bias. I've shown you what I see every day when I go running in the forest. I'm sad every day when I see these dying trees.

Thomas

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by thomas t
I changed the second source, now it's from an official German document

[ARGOSY]

35 minutes ago, thomas t said:

actually, the graph shows that temperatures today are hotter than decades ago. That's my point. Nothing more.

for the forests, all that matters is how the trees are experiencing the climate change that you deem hardly significant... scientists see a link between rising temperatures and damaged trees (see second source in my last post, see also the linked source of this post. Both in German language however, I should research to find something in English language?). If for the trees, a rise by 0.6 degrees is partially deadly, then we see more patches of dead trees simply.

see graph below

see second graph below, it shows damaged trees in red colour, trees in risk of being damaged, and trees that are ok (green colour). Source (click here, see page 9).

I don't think so, I didn't exaggerate. I've shown the truth. I tried to demonstrate the situation of forests in Germany which is where I live today. I hope, you'll find the information of this post more convincing now that you see scienists' evaluation on trees.

I'm not cool. No bias. I've shown you what I see every day when I go running in the forest. I'm sad every day when I see these dying trees.

Thomas

 

I was looking up the situation. Sorry about the drought, we had one two years ago. It wasn't pleasant. So yes those trees are undergoing stress. 

 

Sometime within the last hundred years, each place on the planet will endure their worst drought of that hundred years. Within the last thousand years every single place on the planet will endure a moment which is their worst drought of that thousand years. 

The planet goes through patches of increasing temperatures, and decreasing temperatures over long periods of time, going in and out of ice ages naturally. 

 

You have shown a short period of minor temp change in graphs. I think that's all you have shown. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by ARGOSY

[The Barbarian]

It's pretty easy to understand.   About thirty years ago, a NASA climatologist, James Hansen, using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a guide, prepared a model  predicting future global temperatures.  He had three scenarios. 1. do nothing about carbon emissions   2. do a little about carbon emissions.   3. drastically cut carbon emissions.

He predicted rapid warming, while deniers predicted cooling.

We did scenario 2.   And Hansen's predictions were very close to the actual warming trend.     So that's where we are, today.   

Oh, and energy companies were, using Hansen's model, secretly preparing to manage in a warmer climate, even as they were telling everyone that there was no warming trend.

Would anyone like to see the evidence?