Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:22 pm**

Canuckster1127 wrote:
August wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:
August wrote:Bart, as I have said before, there is some dispute as to whether the planet on a global level is getting warmer or not. What is not much disputed is that some regions are getting warmer.

The big point of contention is whether this regional warming is in a large part due to human activity or not, and as your post points out, that issue remains unresolved in the face of the hundreds of variables that determine climatic changes.
I would disagree.

There is no question that global warming is taking place. The question is the degree, if any, to which human activity is contributing to it. There are regional variations, but the overall increase in terms of global average is hard fact and not deniable by any reasonable examination.
I quote from the NASA site above:
GHCC scientists have compiled two decades of data showing how atmospheric temperature has behaved over the entire globe. All matter emits microwave radiation that varies with its temperature, among other factors. Microwave sensors on weather satellites can take more than 60,000 temperature measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere, from the surface to about 10 km (6 mi) altitude. The story that these measurements tell is more complex than simply saying the Earth is warming or cooling. Temperatures in the lower troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere where we live) have shown a series of ups and downs since 1979, mostly in a ±0.4oC band, with negligible trends over that period. This contrasts with surface thermometers that show warming during the same period of time. The 1997-98 El Nino caused strong lower tropospheric warming in late 1997, and record warmth in February 1998. Satellite measurements of the lower stratosphere reveal two marked warm periods (as much as 1.5oC warmer), caused by sulfuric acid aerosols deposited in this layer by the eruptions of two large volcanoes. These two warm periods are superimposed upon a strong cooling trend over the 19-year period that has been attributed to ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere. In 1997, record low stratospheric temperatures were recorded. This is an ongoing research effort that will have greater impact as more data are collected and analyzed.
Other studies agree:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Rochester and Virginia.

The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

"It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

In another report, the Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.
My comment was that it is not absolute fact that the planet as a whole is getting warmer, and these sources seem to at least confirm that doubt.

Is it your contention that the sources above are not conducting "reasonable examination"?
No. It is my contention that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that temperatures are rising. What these articles are demonstrating, in my opinion, is that there are regional variations and that there is a great deal of complexity to how this is happening and exactly what the cause is.

That is to be expected for reasons I and my sources have already touched upon.

Ok, but the articles above show that the evidence depends on the way that it was measured. There are 3 ways of measuring: Satellite, balloon and ground based. They observed differences between the first two, i.e. atmospheric measurements, and the ground\weather station measurements, and attempted to reconcile. The result of the reconcilation was that the atmospheric measurements were found to be correct, because they covered more of the planet than the weather station measurements. The weather station measurements are also subject to local influences, hence the conclusion that local condictions lead to local warming, or regional warming. This by no means can be extrapolated to mean that the whole planet as on average getting warmer, as per the scientists quoted above.

It is a common tactic in debate and science to cast doubt upon a contention by seeking to demonstrate that an issue is so complex that the proposed general understanding is "simplistic" and "fails to account for several variables." It's a good thing overall as what it leads to, or should is further research study and an effort to isolate those variables and better understand the system.

When it is simply used as a basis to discard what by and large has been accepted by a preponderance of professionals in both camps, ie. that global temperatures have been rising, then, in my humble opinion it ceases to be constructive and serve more in the realm of obfuscation or deliberate confusion of the issue in order to avoid addressing the primary issue.

Hmm, a subtly worded ad-hominem attack on the scientists who disagree. Is the majority opinion then always the correct one? Like Darwinian evolution, for example?

Granted, there is a whole lot of unknowns and this issue has been obfuscated greatly from many directions.

I do not profess that I have a definitive handle on all elements of this debate and can not prove to anyone's satisfaction, let alone my own, that Global Warming is being caused significantly by human activity.

But hte same sources who claim that global warming is a fact also claim as a fact that it is caused by humans, see G'mans letter below.

What I believe is that enough evidence exists as to raising temperatures and some causitive relationship to elements that are contributed by human activity as to prompt further investigation, understanding and at least initially, examination of alternative sources and methods of using energy. Other more direct relationships are already present and proven in terms of air pollution, carcinogens, pathogens etc. to have resulted in significant controls in this area.

I don't disagree with your statements here. I also think that it is prudent that we don't go off tilting at windmills, and in the meantime, address the much more serious pollution problems that you mention, until we understand properly exactly what is going on. That brings up an interesting question, is CO2 pollution or not?

As I've stated earlier, I also tend to believe that other factors, primarily economic supply and demand, are moving us in that direction anyway.

NASA is doing a lot of work and investing a lot of money into satellites, high speed computer modelling etc which they should be and no doubt, as more information accumulates, a clearer picture will emerge.

My hope is that both sides of the argument will be open to examining this information and integrating and where necessary adjusting their espoused biases. Human history unfortunately dictates against that happening.

Agreed.

In any event, I'm comfortable admitting there are unanswered questions and more information needed as we move forward. I'm not comfortable pointing to that as an argument for no action whatsoever. That is not the position of a steward.

But what action should be taken, to combat what? The less than 2% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity? Decreasing the methane emissions? I agree we should fight pollution as you mentioned above, and that a side effect of that is the reduction in human-attributable greenhouse gasses.

Posted: **Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:02 pm**

Canuckster1127 wrote: No. It is my contention that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that temperatures are rising. What these articles are demonstrating, in my opinion, is that there are regional variations and that there is a great deal of complexity to how this is happening and exactly what the cause is.

Excellent observation, the issue of global warming does not preclude the study of the complexities of what is actually occurring. Global warming is not simply an increase in temperature average. There are many intracacies which in some regions would not increase temperature but actrually decrease it. In other areas climate change will occur and in some they may not. As the NASA study alluded to even the chemistry of the atmostphere is being affected and this in turn can interact with other parts of the our environment. Sorry I haven't had time to read everything written in this thread, but I will review it all and provide my own input in due time.

Posted: **Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:03 pm**

But what action should be taken, to combat what? The less than 2% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity? Decreasing the methane emissions?

August, as Richard Deem (the owner of this website) suggests.. "Personally, we can practice energy conservation of all kinds to reduce CO2 emissions. Get out of your SUV and join a car-pool or take public transportation. Recycling greatly reduces the amount of energy necessary to produce many products. If you can afford it, install a solar panel electrical generating system for your home, business, etc." Do you have a problem with this?

As a moderator, maybe you could let him know that he may not have all this facts right either... You can do that here:

http://www.godandscience.org/contact.html

G -

Posted: **Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:13 pm**

I finally had a chance to read through the entire post.

Wow, there was alot to read, but there was some science mixed in here and there.

I'll start off with a few observations.

Increased solar activity does not necessarily mean increased solar output.
In fact increased solar activity usually involves the formation of sunspots which in fact decreases solar output.

However solar output does seem to have increased for the past 100 years. The increase may be small but over a long duration it could have affects on the earths temperature. However in some cases the reverse has been observed, but this is probably due to other factors, such as a large volcanic explosion.
In short the warming trend can be tied to the natural increase in the suns output, if we can show that it has been this way for an extended duration.

The article regarding different measurement techniques seems to have included a mistake. Global warming caused by a greenhouse effect would show surface temperatures increasing and upper atmospheric levels remaining unchanged or even decreasing. The data supports this.
This is because the middle layers would serve as insulation, allowing land and especially large bodies of water to adsorb heat. Bodies of water act as temperature regulators and tend to adsorb and release heat more slowly. Insulation would prevent heat from exiting the lower atmospheric layers thus possibly cooler temperatures in the stratospheric levels.

The upper layers are the most likely to be affected by increase in solar output.

The average temperatures are increasing, attempts to debunk the hockey stick have been misguided, as the hockey stick itself is a midline of possible global temperature levels.
However remove the line and the trend is still evident, the line itself can be placed just about anywhere to change the visual impact.

Appeals to local temperature dips are also misguided as increase in average global temperature does not preclude the reverse trend in a particular location.

Appeals to inland mountainous regions being affected by alternate factors follows the same line of reasoning.

Human output of carbon emissions may have moderate impact on the greenhouse effect which in turn due to increased solar output will accelerate the adsorption of heat by the oceans. However this probably won't be conclusive for some time.

Output of other gasses such as methane may have a more dramatic impact.

Bottom line - the rise in temperatures appears to be unnatural in terms of rate.

The only identifiable correlation seems to be human activity. Be it increases in carbon or methane emission, or deforestation, or a combination of many factors we just don't know. Of course correlation does not always mean causation.

No doubt that if indeed the combination of carbon emmisions and solar output did contribute to increased temperatures than the effects could be magnified over time. This due to the fact that increased ocean temperatures probably means that the oceans cannot adsorb as much carbon, leading to a cycle where carbon remains in the atmostphere for longer and longer durations.

In conclusion, due to the increased solar output it is certain that we would most likely experienced a warming trend regardless, however it also appears that the warming trend we are experiencing now, seems to be at an accelerated pace. I believe that even if we reduced all emissions now, we would not see a reversal in the trend for several decades. It may be coming to a point where we will just have to accept the consequences, the causes of which will become more clear as time goes on.

If I made a mistakes please let me know, I can usually count on sandy_mcd or Canuckster pointing them out to me. I will post any corrections in this thread as well.

Posted: **Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:13 pm**

This post does not argue either for or against global warming and/or any anthropogenic component. It merely addresses the basis of some claims that global warming does not involve humans.

1) A paper was referenced to show that global warming is simply due to the sun getting hotter. In fact the paper does not state this.
2) It was stated that government funded scientists are more likely to support the leftist rhetoric of global warming. This statement doesn't sound reasonable.
3) It was stated that independent researchers are far less likely to do so. Independent researchers essentially don't exist anymore.

So whether or not global warming is real and, if it is, whether human activities play any appreciable role, the above statements do not advance the argument that humans have no effect.

1)

Seriously, they don't mention the simple fact that the Sun is getting hotter. Global warming is part of the natural cycle of the earth's history, and it doesn't have anything to do with our activities.

In fact, according to the referenced paper,

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html wrote:Dr. Willson said most researchers expected greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees, he said.

The numbers:
The claim: nature 100% human activities 0%
Reference: nature 17% human activities 83%
There may in fact be papers which claiming that the sun getting hotter is the sole reason for global warming. This clearly isn't one.

2)

Those scientists who say that it is are, for the most part, govn't funded.

The implication here seems to be that government funded scientists are more likely to support anthropogenic global warming in order to continue getting money for research. This idea might be worth considering under President Clinton and moreso if there were a President Gore (or Lysenkoism in the Stalinist USSR) (high gas prices by the way are not a sine qua non of leftism - gas is only 12 cents per gallon in Venezuela). However under the present administration (which suggested more studies were necessary on global warming after many scientists had accepted it), the reverse (unethical government funded scientists discounting the effects of human activities) seems much more probable. Google "James Hansen" or "Daniel Donato" for two cases of what happens when government funded research does not support political policy. Of course scientists (like judges but unlike lawyers and executives) are supposed to be objective. Nonetheless, scientists are only human, so some no doubt, either consciously or unconsciously, will come to some favored conclusion despite the evidence, just as the rest of us sometimes do.

3)

Independant researchers are far less likely to come to that conclusion. A good example is the paper I already referenced.

The term "independent researcher" conjures up in my mind the image of some well-to-do Victorian puttering around in his home-built lab. Such people have made tremendous scientific advances, but they basically don't exist any more. Research scientists today almost all work in universities, government labs, or companies from which they obtain research funds and paychecks. There may be independent researchers (beholden to no one for their financial support and therefore subject to no outside pressure), but there can't be many. In recent years, I suspect they would be most common in astronomy. Perhaps someone like James La Clair would fit the bill. His recent paper on the total synthesis of hexacyclinol http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1&SRETRY=0 has certainly attracted a lot of attention. Nonetheless there aren't many scientific researchers today who can be described as truly independent. And papers by the referenced author are not a good example:

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl9924/1999GL010700/node5.html wrote:The National Aeronautics and Space Administration provides support for Dr. Willson at Columbia University under contract NAS5-97164. Support for Dr. Mordvinov at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics is provided by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through grants 99-02-16088, 96-15-96733.

Personally, on this issue, for what it matters, my views align closely with those of Canuckster. In fact, since he writes more clearly, better, and more eloquently than I, he is more than welcome (on this topic) to resort to his old tricks of pseudonymous posting, and use my name.

Posted: **Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:00 pm**

Personally, on this issue, for what it matters, my views align closely with those of Canuckster. In fact, since he writes more clearly, better, and more eloquently than I, he is more than welcome (on this topic) to resort to his old tricks of pseudonymous posting, and use my name. Smile

I may take you up on that.

Can I have your credit card too?

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:33 am**

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:41 am**

Jbuza wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... world.html

I agree with parts of this.

Thought this one was interesting

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm

Even better.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/herald.htm

Pretty much similar to a great deal of contrarianism out there already which focuses on the motives of those presenting the primary interpretation rather than direct interaction with the preponderance of the evidence across a broad spectrum.

Good example of the types of arguments being brought and as most here have noted there is a great deal more to determine before solid evidence can be said to exist connecting all the dots.

Still, they seem to be pretty sure that human activity has no impact on the climate. What possible reason could there be for them to take such a strong stance in view of the missing elements still being examined?

Unless of course, their views in this area in terms of attributing political and world-view bias represents some projection of what they themselves are doing or they are simply overreacting from a felt need to deny any impact because of the results such an admission may have in terms of personal comfort or wealth.

Before you react to that, consider that I already have indicated that I believe there is a basis to see that from the left as well, with promoting alarmism for political expediency.

There's plenty of it all the way around.

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:16 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:37 pm**

You're right Sandy.. I'm sure Bart could take us all out to lunch on better and more eloquent writing if he wanted… I won't deny that. I'm also at the extreme mercy of spell check... I even had to spell check eloquent today, I think I had it as eliquent..

Jbuza , just to update matters, lately I've been finding that good ol' Wikipedia has something rather neutral to say about global warming…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

As we can see there are two sides to this coin… What I'm advocating here (and I think others) is that we simply don't dismiss this issue with this Las Vegas let's roll the dice, Jesus will fix or mop it all up for us anyways approach.

Call it what you will, elephant hurling, leftist, green, pink, or even idiotic... I just think we as Christians should be a bit more sensible about how we are handling this topic than just simply shrug it off as a leftist conspiracy trying to dominate the world… Is that too hard to ask? Or maybe even just stay neutral, is that too hard to ask either? Not be too far to the left and not be to far to the right… And I think you can still be a conservative and still hold this view too. What the ultra-left says is that we (as Christians) have NO environmental concerns at all… Well maybe we should prove them wrong on that as well. I also think we should be held accountable to a higher standard when it comes to environmental issues.

Ok, so we may not have all the facts in yet on GW. Our current administration thinks we should take a closer look into it… Ok fine, let's say hypothetically that in 10 or 15 years or whatever it takes to find a sound solution to this issue that we find that 10% of anthropogenic activity was actually 6%, or what was 6% was actually 2%, or what was 2% was actually 0.00001%, or that what was 0.00001% actually amounted to 0%... Big deal, who really cares?? If any concern about this issue makes a person be a bit more cautious on how they handle environmental issues in their life... Then I ask, what harm is this doing?? And if it makes us even a tad less dependant on oil, then what harm is there in that also?

I'm willing to go out on a limb here... Let's say sometime in the far future they find it was 0% of anthropogenic activity.. Has our country ever been wrong about anything in its 200+ year history? Come on, I'm sure if one were to look at the history books you will find something else we did wrong as well too… As Gomer Pile once said, “Surprise, surprise, surprise..” right? And then we could all to the cabbage patch dance and say “look look, see see.. ha.. ha..” then so be it… That is what I'm taking about. If it all amounts to one big laugh and some finger pointing then can we be willing to take that chance sometime in the future? Besides I would rather that we (or even just me for that matter) take that chance now than have a cry about it later… That's all I'm saying here, let's not be too arrogant about it. As Bart clearly stated, “I'm not comfortable pointing to that (as to unanswered questions) as an argument for no action”. Come on now, doesn't that sound reasonable?

Now this does raise another issue (a possible 0% chance of no anthropogenic activity)… Should we be sending more funds into this issue? That maybe is another topic in itself. But I feel that we should be at least safe (or cautious) for now than sorry.

God bless,

G -

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:18 pm**

Thanks for the kind words guys.

I'm by no means an authority in this area or on writing, but it is an area I like to believe God has given me some gifts and I am working to hone these skills.

It's been a big step for me in the past few months to take the step of faith at the age of 43 with a family of 7 to go back to school and move ahead with studying for a Master's Degree (Organizational Leadership.)

If God gives me the desires of my heart this will lead to some opportunities in teaching, writing, consulting and maybe even a PhD.

A lot of this to me finds its roots in basic philosophy and world view as a Christian.

What we believe about God, creation and the future has impact on how we interpret things happening now.

That's one of the beauties of this board and one reason why I am so happy to have found it and further to have been privileged recently to help in the area of moderating.

What we believe about these things forms a basis upon which we interpret reality around us and how we respond it.

Even eschatology. If we view this world as temporary (which I believe all the major school such as Premillennial, Postmillennial and Amillennial ultimately do) then it has some impact upon the context of our stewardship. If we believe that we are in the end days, and that Christ is going to return soon and that ultimately when that takes place this earth will be consumed in fire and a new heaven and a new earth created then that has an impact on how seriously we take environmental issues.

If we believe that there may still be a significant amount of time before any such intervention takes place and that the Church has a role in bringing about a better world as an expression of our stewardship and service of Christ, then that will also have an impact on how seriously we take environmental issues.

That is part of the reason why this board addresses issues in so many areas. What we believe in one area, impacts the framework of how we interpret and respond to the world around us.

I encourage all of us to continue to wrestle with these type of issues and to step back every now and then and ask the hard questions not only of the facts of an issue, but also the framework we have built that allows us to understand and process that issue.

For Christians, that is a part of how we grow, mature and learn.

Anyone of us who thinks we've got it all figured out and nothing more to learn, are in danger of that most insidious of all sins; that of personal pride and an unteachable spirit.

I say that to myself first and am not targeting anyone personally here. But if there is anything to take away for any of us in that, my prayer is that you will take it and continue to grow.

Bart

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:46 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:28 pm**

Jbuza wrote:To the above, Well Said. One thing is sure, and that is that we know very little.

I was doing some more reading on the issue, and found this response to Gore's movie.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

-----------------
Edit

Where is the evidence that global warming has actually accoured? I can't seem to find it. I see it claimed all over the palce, in the Sky is Falling type of doom and gloom.

Apparently there is no evidence that the globe has actually warmed, except of course for the fact that everyone knows that it did.

we reviewed a large body of evidence that suggests that the highly-hyped "unprecedented global warming" of the past two decades never actually occurred. This evidence includes (1) the satellite microwave-sounding-unit temperature record, which in the absence of the massive 1998 El Niño heat pulse shows no warming whatsoever from 1979 to the present, (2) the weather-balloon temperature record, which for the same circumstances also shows no warming, (3) the surface- and satellite-derived temperature records of earth's polar regions, which also show no warming, and (4) the high-quality U.S. Historical Climatology Network data base, which, not surprisingly, also shows no statistically significant warming over this period. We now augment this substantial body of empirical evidence for no global warming over the last two decades with observations gleaned from tree-ring reconstructions of surface air temperature.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... 3/EDIT.jsp

Here's some response to the type of reasoning used by Bob Carter and others.

This is one reason why I think it is not particularly fruitful to draw ones opinion from newspaper opinion articles where there is a political bone to pick on either side.

http://timlambert.org/2005/04/bobcarter/

Bob Carter on Global Warming
Posted by Tim Lambert under Bob Carter

Michael Duffy has followed up his radio show that misrepresented the science of global warming with more of the same. He had Bob Carter on this time and Carter trotted out all the favourite falsehoods of the global warming sceptics. Actually, Carter complains about being called a sceptic:

Such persons, and myself as you introduced me, are often termed 'sceptics' and that's meant to be a term of denigration, but I'm a scientist…it's my job to be a sceptic, Michael, and those who are not sceptical towards human-caused global warming or, indeed, towards any other fashionable environmental concern, are acting in unscientific manner…religious, even.

If “global warming sceptic” has become a term of denigration, it's because of the way they have conducted themselves, dismissing real science on the flimsiest of grounds. I guess I'll use the more accurate “global warming denialist” to describe Carter.

Carter offers up the usual misrepresentations of the science: urban heat islands contaminate the surface record (no they don't), equivocation about the word “consensus”, the “hockey stick” is broken (no), ice cores show that warming precedes increases in C02 (only partly), the IPCC summary does not reflect the body of the report (yes it does).

One particular misrepresentation is particularly troubling. Carter claims:

[the surface record] conflicts with independent estimates or measurements that we have of changing temperature made in the atmosphere by satellites and weather balloons. They show very little net change over the last 30 or 40 years.

But the satellite data shows significant warming over the past 30 years. The only discrepancy is that some analyses find only half as much warming as the surface record, while others show a similar amount of warming. It is wrong to pretend that disagreement somehow proves that there hasn't been any warming.

I remonstrated with Carter when he made similar claims in a Tech Central Station article last year. Here is what he wrote in reply:

There is no conflict between the two following statements, and I stand by both of them.

“There is indeed a small, statistically significant trend.(in the MSU data as analyzed by e.g. Christy et al., 2003)”

and

“The (MSU data) show virtually no long-term trend of temperature increase despite the increased carbon dioxide levels over the last 25 years”

The first is a statistical statement. The second is a statement of scientific judgement which takes into account, amongst other factors, the statistical result.

The sort of technical detail in which you are seeking to discuss the MSU data is most usefully conducted in the relevant professional journals. For reasons of length as much as any other, it is in general not possible to go into such details in an editorial piece written for the general public. That accepted, of course it becomes even more important that the writers of such pieces take particular care with their words. That I have tried to do, and I am sorry if it has not been to your satisfaction.

By coincidence, an interesting new article on MSU results has just come out in Nature (attached). It adds some weight to your evident belief that atmospheric temperatures are rising. On the other hand, many will be concerned that it has proved necessary to selectively manipulate the data to achieve the result. Earlier attempts to make such corrections are acknowledged to have failed.

I shall be interested to see what the expert atmospheric scientists make of Qiang's study, whilst rather doubting that it will prove to be the last word on the subject.

As I said last time, what one makes of the MSU results (i) depends upon the date and authorship of the paper one chooses to trust; (ii) requires that allowance be made for exceptional events such as the 1998 El Nino; and (ii) will be much clearer when we have another 20 years of data.

So Carter is well aware that the satellite data shows warming but did not mention this on the radio show.

John Quiggin has more on the Duffy and Carter show.

For what it is worth, Bob Carter's research is funded by Exxon. I suspect that should be factored into your interpretation of his position.

Focusing simply on one element of the debate and basing an opinion solely upon finding those individuals who say what you already want to believe or have predetermined (if that is what you are doing, only you can answer that) certainly helps to frame the different positions, but it is not definitive.

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:47 pm**

Ok, I was just going to say something here too, but I see that Bart already has his steamroller all fired up on this one. I'm going to get out of his way... Run for your lives mates...!!

G -

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:16 pm**

Gman wrote:Ok, I was just going to say something here too, but I see that Bart already has his steamroller all fired up on this one. I'm going to get out of his way... Run for your lives mates...!!

G -

No steamroller here.

Just trying to find some balance and willing to check the credentials, funding and responses to the positions.

Truth on issues such as this, is rarely found on the outside fringes in either direction.