Remember, though, this is totally serious science, you guys
Climate Change Prophet
On the podcast: A scientist who is also an evangelical Christian wants conservatives to understand the dangers of climate change.
Climate change is one of the most politically divisive issues in the United States today: Most liberals embrace the scientific view that it’s a largely man-made phenomenon threatening our very existence, whereas many conservatives see it as fake news.
Standing at the intersection between these two groups is Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian who is also an atmospheric scientist. Hayhoe, who runs the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, has devoted herself to persuading skeptics that climate change is real—including people in her own community.
Hayhoe is featured in the Winter 2019 edition of Foreign Policy magazine as one of 100 Global Thinkers. She is also the guest on our podcast this week.
Let’s be clear on one thing: climate change is real. But, there is no actual scientific proof using the scientific method nor real facts and data that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period. And the way in which the Believers present it makes it look like a cult.
You’re right, climate change (global warming) is real.
But the evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is the likely cause is overwhelming. Of course there is no proof that that’s the case, since scientific theories are rarely proven. It’s never been proven how gravity works, either.
To you, what would “proof” of the theory of global warming look like?
Uh no. There is no scientific evidence to support nignorant’s claim.
Jeff,
It is called the scientific method, you have been told that numerous times. Now, how is a economy destroying tax and global communism going to change CO2?
dave,
You’re just spewing nonsense. Please explain the scientific method for us, and demonstrate how the accumulated evidence supporting the theory violates the method. Didn’t think so…
There is no tax that would destroy the economies, nor global communism on the horizon. If you read something other than conblogs you’d realize the worry right now is global right-wing authoritarianism.
Jeff,
Just as we thought you don’t have a clue as to how to work your religion. Keep trying.
And you are lying.
As often said before, proof would be a physical world where there’d be no evidence of contradictory data. But obviously that’s not the case, nor has it ever been.
What is the most convincing contradictory data that invalidates the theory of global warming?
What is the most convincing contradictory data that invalidates the theory of global warming?
Observation in conjunction with a litany of unrealized predictions, unprovable assumptions and manipulated models. That, and the fact once it became political it became corrupt like everything else that becomes political. Once the left decided it was a political and not a scientific problem they made it impossible to determine the truth. It all became a matter of faith for the left.
One can Google the Chicken Little catastrophic doomsday climate predictions from the 1970’s till today and see how many proved correct from “The Experts”. Exactly zero.
So you reject the evidence. So does DJ Trump.
Do you believe the scientists have faked the data in this recent paper from the journal Science? The authors agree with TEACH who also claims that global warming is real.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/363/6423/128.full.pdf
Kye: Observation in conjunction with a litany of unrealized predictions, unprovable assumptions and manipulated models.
Not sure what unprovable assumptions to which you are referring. The basic physics of greenhouse warming have been known since the 19th century. If you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, it will increase the greenhouse effect, warming the surface.
Although you kiddiez will not respond y’all might want to revisit that assertion.
The radiation from the Sun heats the surface.
LOL.
For starters, these: http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
And these: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
A podcast associated with a magazine headlined Dr. Hayhoe as a prophet. She didn’t call herself that.
You have a bad case of CCDS (Climate Change Derangement Syndrome).
Does the org, Conservatives United for Netizen Trump, qualify as a true cult?
I don’t reject the evidence. I reject the conclusion.
What conclusion do you reject?
That the Earth is warming?
That atmospheric CO2 is the cause?
The theory of global warming is based upon an entire culture of misdirection and misdeeds. I will not list those here because I assume most of you on both sides of the debate know what they are. The myriad of emails discussing cooking the data to reach a conclusion. The ludicrous notion that a few hundred molecules added to the atmosphere can so drastically tip the earths climate as to create a disaster.
The initial problem with the AGW protagonists is the idea they have made this political. George Soros just donated 18 billion dollars to his open borders society which has as one of its foundational roots the idea of spreading AGW doctrine around the world.
George Soros and his open borders society are totally political. The AGW funding is politically driven around the globe. KEY People who make a living either supporting or rejecting the AGW conclusions are politically motivated based upon the realization that choosing either position is a rewarding enterprise.
Governments are known to pay for reports only if they proves AGW is real. If you get paid to prove something then your most likely going to do what is necessary to prove said position in order to get your paycheck.
Russia has disproved AGW. They offer the science and modeling. The west is not interested. One of the posters on this website posted information regarding this so I spent some research adding it to my stack of pros and cons of AGW.
Once AGW stops becoming political in an attempt to crush western culture and open up the world to a borderless society then I am afraid I will not support any contention made by any AGW proponent which indicates AGW is real and a few hundred molecules out of a million are so powerful as to change the climate trajectory of the earth.
And example would be the massive eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which caused the earth to slightly cool. The PPM recorded during this even was several 1000 which reduced the earths temperature by about .2 of one degree C. Several thousand to barely move the marker as opposed to a couple hundred PPM is going to create catastrophic warming.
Herein lies the problem. Until AGW is no longer a political football those who oppose a fascist one world society and a globe without borders running on inefficient energy sources bringing us all back to the level of Somalia and Chad then you are going to continue to have a battle. A serious battle in which the AGW crowd is sure to lose in the short term.
Unable to separate fact from fiction. Science from religion AGW has bogged down. This is the point we find ourselves as poll after poll indicate that people would rather pay their bills than donate trillions to a fascist new world order bent on ruining everyones way of life over something that may or may not be true and certainly will not affect their lives and probably not their offspring either.
MrDeLaGarzenzo: The PPM recorded during this even was several 1000 which reduced the earths temperature by about .2 of one degree C.
Huh? PPM of what? Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacted with water vapor to create a layer of aerosols, cooling the atmosphere about ½°C.
Using a density of dry air of 1.1 kg/m^3, and a concentration of CO2 of 400 ppm, or 0.04 vol% ~ 0.055 wt%… 0.055/100 x 1.1 kg = .00064 kg CO2/m^3.
FW CO2 = 44 g/mol, therefore .64 g/ 44g/mol = 0.015 mol/m^3
0.015 mol/m^3 x 6 x 10^23 (Avogadro constant) comes out to about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules CO2 in a cubic meter of air.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is greater than “a few hundred”. Even if my math is off by a few billion, it’s still more than “a few hundred”.
And that’s only in one cubic meter! The atmosphere has a volume of about 5 billion cubic km. A cubic km contains a billion cubic meters.
5,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 x 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules/ cubic meter is a big, big number. And still more than “a few hundred molecules”. But only 40% of those molecules have been added over the past century or so.
All those gigatons of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere make a difference!
Anyway, check my math, as I might be wrong.
Not only are your math skills lacking you’re wrong on just about everything and do not make any sense.
Also you’re not very bright.
The evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming spans multiple disciplines, notably the physics of the greenhouse effect, and includes observations of the surface, atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, along with direct measurements of the greenhouse effect and Earth’s energy budget. The open question is climate sensitivity, with the most likely value being 1½-4½°C per doubling of CO2. That still represents a significant range of uncertainty, but even the low range will cause significant climate disruption.
Funny that the kiddiez show up with their same old lame word salad.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
What? The Earth is an open system? Thank Allah for a genius conservablogger to save us from ourselves!! All those dumb, conspiratorial, crooked scientists have been exposed!!
But yet, more energy comes into the Earth than leaves it, resulting in the oceans, land and atmosphere warming. Why does more energy come in than leaves nowadays? Unless you believe that the Earth is warming from internal mechanisms (maybe those undiscovered volcanoes in the oceans?).
Why doesn’t the Earth have the same temperature extremes as our moon?
That is not was quoted, nignorant.
Learn to read and read the entire thing before making more of an idiot out of yourself than you already have.
Z,
I doesn’t matter any longer, didn’t you get the memo. The Europeans said they aren’t supporting the religion any longer. Pay attention to what is going on in the world.
david7134: The Europeans said they aren’t supporting the religion any longer.
The evidence doesn’t depend on “the Europeans”, whatever that is supposed to mean. European climate scientists have reached the same conclusion as scientists in the U.S., anthropogenic greenhouse warming is occurring.
Z,
We realize that you are still in high school, but you can at least pay attention to current events.
Now, your data and analysis is very suspect as this in the end is a political issue. The desired end game for those in your religion is high, crushing taxes, wealth redistribution and global communism. You will bluster and carry on like immature liberals, but that is the end result. Now, how do we know this? Because in the numerous years in discussing this that is the only acceptable remedy that liberals will acvept. Filters and capture of CO2 is automatically discounted as an acceptable solution.
Now, Europe had this forced on them and rebelled. That means that the most liberal squids on our planet find the costly and destructive answers for an issue that is pure junk to be unacceptable so there is no reason for liberals to continue to push this religion, the so?union is not going to happen.
dave,
Most things end up being political. But evidence is not.
You may be right that we humans lack the will to address the global warming crisis, but that doesn’t invalidate the data.
The Earth is warming from CO2 we keep adding to the atmosphere. The issue is what we do about it.
By all means… an inventor of a practical carbon capture method or carbon filter would become a trillionaire.
Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 15-20 pounds of CO2. If it’s unacceptable to “store” it in the atmosphere, where do you suggest we store it?
david7134: We realize that you are still in high school, but you can at least pay attention to current events.
That was where you should have provided evidence to support your view.
david7134: The desired end game for those in your religion is high, crushing taxes, wealth redistribution and global communism.
Actually, anything resembling communism would make it more difficult to respond to climate change. Robust markets are necessary for the economic growth and technological innovation required to find solutions to the problem. None of this impacts the science, though. That remains regardless of the political squabbles, though the majority of Europeans agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed.
http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf
david7134: Filters and capture of CO2 is automatically discounted as an acceptable solution.
CO2 capture, especially at the point of emission, is certainly a possibility, but reducing emissions is generally much easier and effective at this point.
No, it’s alleged the low range would cause significant disruption.
Z: the low range will cause significant climate disruption.
Jl: the low range would cause significant disruption.
Not sure what distinction you are attempting to draw.
“Alleged”, kiddiez, as in not proven.
Yes-you stated that “it willâ€. That’s not known, only a computer generated assumption. Which brings to mind the bigger picture- whether it’s warming or not, or whether it’s natural or not, it’s the effect that matters.
Not sure why you’re arguing details since you still deny the Earth is warming.
Do you have fire insurance on your house, even though there’s a 99.99% chance it will never burn?
Do you keep a gun in your home for protection even though there’s a greater chance that you’ll be harmed by it than that you’ll defend yourself against an intruder?
Yet the right demands ironclad, 100% “proof” that greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm before they’ll agree to even consider slowing greenhouse gas pollution. (We know this is a lie – the right will just keep moving the goalpost). Why? Because the right is not driven by the science in the least – only about their ideology. The right denies human-caused global warming because they oppose the possible solutions.
Jeff,
What science?? You haven’t provided a single thing.
“Significant” climate disruption as opposed to insignificant climate disruption.
How does that work?
The “evidence” supporting anthropogenic global warming may span multiple disciplines but only supports climate change, not man made global warming. And just because you can pluck out and pay off a bunch of leftists from different “disciplines” to “support” something they’re being paid to support does not make a convincing argument. Especially when the cost to wealth and Freedom are entered into the equation.
You guys lost the argument when you started spouting “The science is settled” and “97% of all scientists believe…” crap. Science is never settled and science is not up for a vote. You all got science mixed up with democratic politics and that ended the discussion for a lot of people. Plus, it doesn’t help your argument when you all look down on those of us who disagree with you like we’re idiots for not accepting your Brilliant Elitist Position and your condescension loses more people than it attracts. Just sayin’.
You are doing the same thing once again with this “Green New Deal” sh!t. You never learn. You are politicizing science and we ain’t fallin’ for it. The DåMâ˜CRATS need a new play book, you’ve worn this one out.
Kye: The “evidence†supporting anthropogenic global warming may span multiple disciplines but only supports climate change, not man made global warming.
That is incorrect. Start with the physics of the greenhouse effect. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will increase the greenhouse effect, which will warm the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the upper stratosphere — and that is what we observe.
That there would be a single control variable in an open-dynamic complex system is more than highly unlikely.
Jl: That there would be a single control variable in an open-dynamic complex system is more than highly unlikely.
As climate scientists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, alterations in ocean or air currents, continental drift, mountain building, changes in greenhouse gases, even the occasional cometary impact. There is no single “control variable”.
Z,
That is a totally illogical statement. You are obsessed with CO2, as if the world will die if a trace has in that atmosphere increases them you start saying many things effect the climate. So, what are you arguing??
david7134: You are obsessed with CO2, as if the world will die if a trace has in that atmosphere increases them you start saying many things effect the climate.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?! Yes, many things affect the climate. The Earth’s climate has changed many times through its four-and-a-half billion year history, for a variety of reasons. The current warming trend, though, is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. There is nothing “illogical” in that.
Z,
So destruction of Western economy and high taxes will save us? Now I have it, thanks.
dave,
Con Men have been claiming that addressing global warming will destroy Western economies, yet offer no evidence or even a reasonable explanation of why this might occur.
I won’t ask you to do so (obviously), but can you direct us to the literature showing that a transition to non-fossil fuel energy sources will destroy Western economies?
So in other words you’re saying this time there’s a single control variable-CO2. Except that hasn’t been proven
david7134: So destruction of Western economy and high taxes will save us?
As already noted, robust markets are necessary for the economic growth and technological innovation required to find solutions to the problem of anthropogenic climate change.
dave,
It’s not illogical at all. Climate scientists understand that many factors influence the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
For example, aerosols (from pollution or volcanoes), increasing albedo (reflectivity), decreasing greenhouse effect, cyclic changes in orbital paths and a cooling sun can all cause cooling. A hotter sun, greenhouse gases, other cyclic changes in orbit, decreased albedo etc can cause warming.
What factor is currently changing, consistent with the increasing temperature? Atmospheric CO2.
A massive volcanic eruption next year would be predicted to drop the temp for a bit. Do you believe that volcanic aerosols can block the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth?
Jeff,
So taxes will decrease the likelihood of a volcano erupting?
dave,
You can’t be that stupid.
Jeff,
That is not my way of thinking, it is what you are saying. Everyone here feels you are that dumb, except for the high school kids and they are just arguing for their debate club.
I stand corrected. You can be that stupid.
Do you really think it hurts that right-wing commenters here think I’m dumb?
Jeff,
So you are smarter and better than all the people here. And I would bet that is because you are a liberal and that makes you better. Also, you have a ton of money, at least that is what you claim. Son you are sick.
Climate scientists already knew there are many drivers of climate change. That’s nothing new in the climate change subject. The “man made” part is what is not proven and what makes it political. I think we all realize the climate changes. We all know the earth is not the same now as it was during the Mesozoic period this is not new.
What is new is using a scientific theory in the modern world to achieve the ends and goals of a political conspiracy. A conspiracy which is decidedly leftist, anti Freedom, anti property and anti individual. The same leftists who have controlled Academia and education along with the Media Complex for decades now tell people that those same academics have decided man is causing catastrophic climate change and their propaganda arm in the media broadcasts it like Moses on Sinai and they expect we will believe them ….because. Sorry. The left has lied to the people so often we no loner are willing to listen.
They have been preaching one form or another of catastrophic man made climate change since the late 1960’s and Manhattan has not sunk, Florida is not covered in snow and the sky has not radiated “acid rain” and destroyed the food supply. Hell, I’m still waiting for the “experts” to tell me about the planes dropping out of the sky on 12/31/1999 because Y2K would signal the apocalypse. You leftists have no validity. Social Security didn’t end retirement poverty, Medicaid didn’t cover all the poor, the War on Poverty was fought and poverty won, the War on drugs was a loser too, equal rights just shifted illegal discrimination from blacks to whites. I could go on but suffice it to say “The Green New Deal” is on scam, one grift, one lie too far. Sorry. You guys are selling stuff we ain’t buyin’.
Kye: The “man made†part is what is not proven
Anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported. Start with the physics of the greenhouse effect. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will increase the greenhouse effect, which will warm the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the upper stratosphere — and that is what we observe.
Kye: Hell, I’m still waiting for the “experts†to tell me about the planes dropping out of the sky on 12/31/1999 because Y2K would signal the apocalypse.
Heh. Someone rings the fire alarm, and says “We must respond now to the fire, or the entire town could be threatened.” Other people respond, though, and put out the fire, so the town doesn’t burn down. You say, “The town didn’t burn down. He was just being an alarmist.”
The poverty rate of the elderly has been slashed since we instituted Social Security. That may not be “proof” but supports the hypothesis that SS would reduce elderly poverty. Cons have wanted to eliminate SS for a long time. What is stopping them?
It didn’t? It’s true that many Red states refused to expand Medicaid to cover more poor. Do you really desire that Medicaid cover any of the poor, much less all the poor?
Yes, pity the poor white American. LOL. Do you think you’d be better off as a Black man in America?
White conservative men feel they’re losing their favored status in America. And they are. Oppressors always feel discriminated against when the oppressed demand equal rights.
You may oppose any actions to address global warming, but it is not up to you, is it? American voters will decide. It’s very unlikely the GOP will hold the Senate, and Trump will be gone by the 2020 election.
“White conservative men”? Man, are you a bigot or what? And I don’t use that word lightly but when you identify people by their race and sex for punitive discrimination then gloat about it you can only be a racist and a bigot. I thought you were a better person than that by reading your posts. I guess I was wrong.
BTW, I never said I “oppose any actions to address global warming” did I? That’s another reason we don’t trust you leftists any more, you don’t argue in good faith. I tried to explain we aren’t buying the “man-made” part and I explained why: Because we’ve been lied to about everything you leftists preach for at least 6 decades starting with William Duranty and his lies about the Soviets to to Obama with his “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. We’re tired of being lied to and just won’t listen to your ravings any longer. And when every argument you post is a repeat of the DNC talking points you don’t further the idea you endorse. We understand you guys believe in the old “tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” theory but even that has gotten old under leftist over usage.
BTW, when you say stuff like “You may oppose any actions to address global warming, but it is not up to you, is it? American voters will decide” you need to understand we’re not threatened by democracy, that’s why we don’t need voter fraud. Besides, when the dust settles the vote will be for prosperity and Freedom, not the fake Green New Deal regardless who controls Congress or the White House.
Do you see know why he is referred to as a nignorant angry little black fella?
When did “conservative white man” become a slur?
It was you who claimed whites are being discriminated against. Isn’t that identifying someone by race? Do you really believe whites are being discriminated against??
Conservative white men see themselves as victims. Toughen up, snowflake.
You’re tired of being lied to by liberals, but you support Donald Trump, who lies daily? But it’s been my experience that conservatives have constructed a fantasy world supported by mistruths and distortions. Most conservative tenets are not supported by reason or evidence. Trump’s lies support your fantasy world – it’s why Cons love him.
And sure enough nignorant angry little negro fella proves my point again.
Jeff,
Trump lies daily??? Yet he turned the economy around in 2 years, something our affirmative action president could not figure. Keep telling us how great you are.
dave,
That’s just another bit of misinformation that you Con Men believe, that us just not true. tRump didn’t turn the economy around in 2 years, but was a recipient of an improving economy. The tax cuts (stimulus spending) DID cause a sugar high – but at the expense of the deficit. Thank Allah that the US is the only organization he hasn’t bankrupted. Yet.
Affirmative action President? Why are you redneck haters afraid to just say “the word”? You know you want to. You know you say it daily amongst your like-minded Neanderthals. You’re a proud, KKK-loving, white supremacist peckerwood.
Jeff,
Ignorant as usual.
“Do you have fire insurance on your house� Yes, the mortgage company requires it. Which still doesn’t change the fact that the supposed dire effects of warming are in the future (as always), and are simply computer projections. But your analogy is flawed, as usual. If I owned the house the fire insurance would still be optional. Carbon taxes and all the other crap associated with this, not so much
SAUL ALINSKY over and over. The resident troll is here to stir up trouble. He is paid to do this or else he would have moved on long ago.
Saul Alinsky tactics. Notice he responds to a question by asking you WHAT YOU WOULD DO WHILE NEVER ANSWERING WHAT HE WOULD DO. Saul Alinsky.
Notice he ridicules you. A powerful tactic used by radicals.
Ignore him. It is what I do. He is irrelevant.
Do you really think someone would pay commenters on a low-level conservablog?
Just more proof that Cons live in a fantasy world. Much of what you believe to be true, is not. Why do Cons not believe in reality? Because reality conflicts with their fantastical worldview.