Is global warming a scam?

I asked for the reference to the petition signed by the 31000 scientists, not because I believe it, but because you don't claim stuff like this in an article without referencing the source, even if it is total nonsense.

"Can we please have a reference to the petition signed by the 31,000 scientists."

(Sigh) Right, fine, you're still buying that crock are you? Here's the reference you demanded - someone took the trouble to check your "scientists"* bona fides;
http://earthfirst.com/global-warming-deniers-pretend-to-be-scientists-fo...

Here's a non-exhaustive list of untrustworthy sources of information on the issue - these are just the ones funded by Exxon; http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
Mandleson could probably give you the gen on BP shills as he's off to pimp his darkness there after Westminster.

*I am heartily sick of the word "scientists" being bandied about as if people had never been introduced to the idea of scientific specialism. It's either infantile or disingenuous, depending on just how much loving-kindness one can muster, but neither quality is attractive or useful in a serious debate based on scientific research.

When it comes to climate change - my money's on the climatologists, rather than say, geologists with massive financial interest in climate change denial such as the Australian Conservative's darling, Ian Plimer.

Let's be very clear about the author of the oh-so-popular "Heaven and Earth; Global Warming: The Missing Science" Wiki's not always accurate but for once it's on the money & succinct to boot, so I'll give it to you unedited; "Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals. In 2008 and 2009, Plimer earned over AU$400,000 from these interests, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.Plimer rejects claims of a conflict between his commercial mining interests and his view that man-made climate change is a myth." To cite poor dear Christine Keeler, "He would say that, wouldn't he?"

"As a heretic I'll never see it."

Ah, well, you can't tell. I do trust that I'll be part of the new creation, but I'm fairly sure that there will be a good number of heretics and the like involved - Monophysites and Chalcedonians will be reconciled among much laughter, heretics of all sorts will embrace orthodox of all sorts, and there will be even more laughter as everyone realises that the truth was so much bigger and better than their doctrinal debates ever came close to revealing. So we'll watch out for each other, and have a good laugh together, celebrating in the warm glow of the perfect climate. Except..

There was an argument a while ago that heaven will in fact be hotter than Hell. It was based upon Isa.30:26, and calculated that the resultant thermodynamic gain would make heaven hotter than the boiling point of sulphur, so as the lake of fire in Rev.21:8 must be cooler than that, heaven must be hotter than hell. And then someone argued that was wrong, because of other bits of physics - see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm "for both sides of a burning debate on a hot issue" (sic)!

Perhaps for some folk hell would be having nothing to argue about?

Perhaps we’ll both be proved right, Tony. As a good Christian you’ll one day be welcomed into the brave new world that Jesus brings on his return, with a perfect climate. As a heretic I'll never see it. I’ll be excluded from that and be left with the old Earth which by then will have warmed up so much that it’ll be as hot as hell – or then again perhaps experiencing a bitter ice age – depending on whom you believe.

"...the coming of the kingdom is already in process."

Yes, it is. And is yet to come. I referred to the teachings of Jesus about a Kingdom which is already but not yet. 'Already' is the process you describe, and yes, it is evident in changes in ethical and moral understanding, in social practice, etc. But it isn't enough - as fast as moral progress is made, other issues open up and pull us down.

"The problem is that we’re still hung up in first century thinking about a God who sits up there and says, “Let this happen” and it happens instantly."

The difficulty is in how to 'translate' 1st C thinking into our own categories, and being faithful to both. A lot of NT thinking about the End is expressed in apocalyptic terms, using ideas which were current in intertestamental literature, and using a world view which isn't ours. Now, do we translate it so far that we lose that eschatological horizon, dump the categories altogether because it isn't our worldview? Or do we take it more seriously that Jesus used such language and categories, and refuse to unceremoniously dump it just because it's part of the Bible which doesn't fit where we want it to?

"...once it gained political power, its leaders have spent so much more time on telling people what to believe (and in numerous religious wars being prepared to kill those who thought differently) than on showing people how to love."

Yup. I blame Constantine. Glad he got converted, pity he took charge and gave the Church political power. But what I think is just as serious a problem is the way theology got hi-jacked by the methods of Greek philosophy. It was partly inevitable, because the faith was spreading in a Greek-thinking world, but the result was a method which was so nit-picking, and so divisive. The debates at Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon produced formulae by which orthodoxy was judged - the Church divided in 451 over the issue of whether Jesus had one nature or two; both sides worshipped Jesus as the One who died and was raised again, both sides read the same Bible, both sides dismissed the others as heretics. Scandalous. And it is still going on today. That is the main reason why the Church hasn't had more impact - far too much emphasis on orthodox doctrine, far too little emphasis on living in love for God and one another, as Jesus taught. And horrendously bad example - Screwtape would be proud of us.

None of which takes away the firmly eschatological horizon of the NT. The Kingdom of God began in Jesus, and has continued to work ever since. But the Second Coming did not happen on the Day of Pentecost. That is still to come.

”As far as I understand it, God isn't finished yet.”

I agree with you, Tony. But that doesn’t nullify my suggestion that the coming of the kingdom is already in process. The problem is that we’re still hung up in first century thinking about a God who sits up there and says, “Let this happen” and it happens instantly. We know now that the Universe is about 14 billion years old (and still developing) and the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old (International Planetarium Society) and the first life on earth appeared some 3.8 billion years ago. God appears to work in aeons rather than days and hours (despite the thinking in Genesis), so why do we expect the Kingdom of God to be built in a day? 2,000 years is a drop in the ocean compared with the time that has elapsed since our ancestors first crawled out of the primordial swamp. It also seems to me that the message of incarnation is that God involves himself actively in the world; he doesn’t sit in a celestial control room deciding when and where to intervene, or what the weather or climate is going to be. And that involvement is through human activity, not by appearing like a deus ex machine in a Greek play and putting everything right for us. Bringing in the Kingdom this way necessitates a long, slow process of development and maturation; and since we are humans with free will and not pre-programmed robots, this overall process will include retrograde steps. Yes, there are Christians who claim that the world is getting increasingly evil, but I’ve met very few who would seriously want to change their current situation for life 2,000 years ago or even 100 years ago. The very fact that most Christians today would agree with you that the crusades and the Inquisition, done in the name of Christ, were evil is surely a sign of progress. Just look at the working and living conditions for the poor in Wesley’s day and the number of petty, and often desperate, criminals who were publicly hanged and the fact that slavery was still endemic. Yes, the holocaust happened, but we regard that with horror too and many of the perpetrators were punished. Compare that with the thinking behind today’s Word in Time reading where Saul was punished by God because he didn’t complete the genocide of the Amakelites but spared King Agag.

We were told in an Advent sermon that in Christ’s new earth (created at a stroke and with force) everyone will have a healthy resurrected body, all at the prime of life. Our children, grandchildren, parents and grandparents will all look about the same age as us, and none of us will age physically again. There will be no marriage or children; no pain or death or disputes; no one will ever be sad or in need. The climate will be perfect. Sin and sinful thoughts will be banished. And, of course, only Christians will qualify. Paradise? - I don’t think so. I wouldn’t forego the joy of having children and grandchildren in order to gain eternal youth; my own deterioration and death are a price I’m willing to pay. Nor would I give up moral and religious freedom in order to have all my needs met. That seems like a huge step backwards into spiritual childhood. A tiger that became a herbivore would lose the essential quality that makes it a tiger; and a human being that gave up free will and creativity for a protected life would lose much of his humanity.

Why has Christianity not made a bigger impact on the morality of the world in 2,000 years? Primarily because, once it gained political power, its leaders have spent so much more time on telling people what to believe (and in numerous religious wars being prepared to kill those who thought differently) than on showing people how to love. And loving includes taking responsibility for the resources of the planet and their distribution, of increasing the life expectancy in poorer countries, so that parents don’t have too many children in the hope that some will survive, and looking to the planet and its climate that future generations will inherit.

From today's Sunday Times

"A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi."

Read the rest if you wish

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"There is a third possibility: that the coming of the Holy Spirit was also the coming of the Spirit of Jesus; that the Shekhinah, God’s presence on earth, is now an indwelling of the Spirit of God. I suggest that, just as the disciples found it difficult to recognize the risen Jesus, they missed the Second Coming."

You won't be surprised if I tell you that others have suggested this possibility before you. It has come in various forms - the most recent was the scholar C H Dodd, and his theory of 'realised eschatology' (that is, the prophecies about the End have already been fulfilled).

Problem. As I understand it, Jesus' promises about the Kingdom of God included sayings about the Kingdom already here, and the Kingdom yet to come. The Kingdom already here is about his work and ministry here, in which we share. The Kingdom yet to come involves the destruction of evil, the victory of good - indeed, the final and ultimate victory of God. Now, how do you explain that as being fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost? You see, I've read a lot of history, and I read the papers and watch the news. I've read about a lot of really bad stuff, some of which was done by religious folk in the name of Jesus, and some of which was done against religious folk who had done things in the name of Jesus. And some of it just sort of happened - like the tsunami 5 years ago, and this week's Haitian earthquake. Now, if you're going to tell me that whatever was meant by the Second Coming actually happened in Jerusalem a few weeks after the death and resurrection of Jesus, but has not really affected the two millennia of human history since then, and you want me to believe in the ultimate victory of God's kingdom when crap like this is still happening, I have to say FAILED.

There is still a lot of evil around. Some of it is the stuff we do, some of it is the stuff which just seems to happen. As far as I understand it, God isn't finished yet. If he is, and that was his best shot, I'd better become a Buddhist or something.

Actually, I'm not so much confused as undecided. I think there is a strong case for AGW, but as we've already said a few times, the jury is still out. I have to say the arguments of the anti-AGW brigade so far sound like special pleading, rather than engaging with the evidence.

Having said that, I agree with you about population growth. It is clearly a factor, because so many more people are using so much more energy, and producing so much more CO2, etc. And as you say, there is no easy answer. Which is why I asked my eschatological question a couple of days ago - is this the mechanism of the end of our current phase of human existence on this planet? We cannot continue as we are, that's for sure.

One of the voices which make up the OT is the person who wrote what has been called the Deuteronomic History (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings - one work on 6 scrolls). In that history, it often said that judgement is less to do with divine intervention, rather more to do with God allowing us to suffer the consequences of our actions (so David's sin with Bathsheba is punished by the death of the fruit of that sin, etc). Perhaps the Deuteronomist was right, and the consequences of our materialism and greed will be the exhaustion of the resources that could have sustained several generations of society.

As they say on all the best exam papers - discuss!

Still confused, that is.

No wonder, with all the manipulation of data which is going around. It seems that people on both sides of the argument tend to make up their mind, and then interpret the facts to suit.

I can't help feeling it's much more to do with the massive world population explosion over the the last one hundred years. I did mention this earlier but no-one commented. It's one big statistic which is both verifiable and worrying.

“Well, there are two possibilities. One is that Jesus expected the End very soon, and he was wrong (so Albert Schweitzer). The other is that Jesus wasn't referring to the Second Coming, but his resurrection as the first step in the opening up of the Kingdom.”

There is a third possibility: that the coming of the Holy Spirit was also the coming of the Spirit of Jesus; that the Shekhinah, God’s presence on earth, is now an indwelling of the Spirit of God. I suggest that, just as the disciples found it difficult to recognize the risen Jesus, they missed the Second Coming. We have inherited from 1st century Judaism and can’t let go off the notion of a conquering Messiah, and we still hanker after one who’ll come and complete the work that Jesus of Nazareth started, deal with those who won’t listen to God’s message, sort the world out and then rule it for the benefit of Christians. We, like the disciples, have become so wrapped up in equating the presence of God on earth with the physical presence of Jesus that we can miss God when he’s right in front of us. We’re so busy looking for him to be revealed in acts of power that we don’t see his presence in countless acts of love.

Talk of Albert Schweitzer reminds me of his image of the continuing presence of Jesus: “He comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old by the lakeside he came to those men who knew him not. He speaks to us the same word, “Follow me!” and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey him, whether they be wise or simple, he will reveal himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in his fellowship, and , as an ineffable mystery they shall learn in their own experience who he is.”

As you say, we can’t avoid our responsibilities by expecting Jesus to sort everything out for us. We have to let him work through us. Nor, as you again say, can we allow one cold winter to be the excuse for not reining in our exploitation of the earth’s resources.

"...whilst it may be hot in Melbourne right now, it was HOTTER there in 1904."

1902, actually. It also says:

"Richard Whitaker, a senior meteorologist for Australia's Weather Channel, said northerly winds from inland were responsible for the Melbourne heatwave.
"Over the last 50 years there is no doubt in Australia, we've seen a rising temperature trend," he said."

Still confusing weather and climate, I reckon. One hot or cold spell in a given locality proves very little. It is the aggregation of all the data over a substantial period which reveals trends. As we've already said, if incoming data shows a cooling trend, the AGW theory will be modified or falsified accordingly. In the meantime, the best interpretation of the available data seems to be a general warming of the earth's overall climate. And it is without doubt associated with the increase of greenhouse gasses. At the moment, the only debate seems to be about of cause and effect.

And does his research account for the seriously hot weather currently being endured in Australia?

We can all do that sort of thing, can't we?

The BBC article you quote also tells us that whilst it may be hot in Melbourne right now, it was HOTTER there in 1904. (Before cars and planes!)

QED

"The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler weather"."

And does his research account for the seriously hot weather currently being endured in Australia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8453744.stm

Sorry, but this is just another example of a journalist confusing weather and climate. Isn't the Mail on Sunday just as keen to say AGW isn't happening(so its Tory readers can get on with not sacrificing their standard of living) as the Guardian is keen to say it is happening (because its right-on readership want to be cutting-edge and saving the earth)? This is a serious argument?

"Unfortunately, the way things usually work, it is the rich and powerful who create most of the damage and the poor and dispossessed who suffer most of the destruction."

Actually, those of us in the affluent West ARE the rich and powerful in world terms. It is our culture's extravagant use of energy which has wreaked most damage, and created the expectation among developing nations that they can have it,too. Which is one reason why India and China aren't interested in reducing carbon emissions - they feel that we've had more than our share of the world's resources, and we're now telling them they can't have their fair share.

As for Mt.16:28 and Mt.24:34, etc - well, there are two possibilities. One is that Jesus expected the End very soon, and he was wrong (so Albert Schweitzer). The other is that Jesus wasn't referring to the Second Coming, but his resurrection as the first step in the opening up of the Kingdom, which means he was right and his followers didn't understand him.

Either way, it doesn't falsify what I said about Mt.24:36. People who are so certain about when the End will come are almost certainly wrong. They have been every time,and there have been LOTS of times. Indeed, I suggest there is almost a case for asking why people are so keen to announce the imminent End- what is their real hidden agenda? The US evangelicals previously referred to are clearly using the promise of the End as an excuse not to exercise good stewardship, but to continue in their excessive greed. Am I being unfair? I don't think so.

”Jesus said very clearly that no one would know when the Second Coming would happen” (Mt.24:36)

Isn’t that a little disingenuous, Tony? Haven’t you forgotten to mention that Jesus also said: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) and “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” (Matthew 24:34); (Mark 13:30); and (Luke 21:32). John 21:20-23 seems to have been written to explain away why Jesus hadn’t come back before the beloved disciple died. Even then, the revised version is not that different: “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” Doesn’t that suggest a fairly imminent return? There’s plenty of evidence that this is certainly what the early Christians understood.

So did the early Christians, including the disciples and Paul, completely misunderstand what Jesus said about the timing of his return or did they misunderstand what he said about the nature of the return?

Since most Jews were expecting a messianic hero and mighty king, many Jews would have claimed that Jesus could not have been the messiah, because he did not free them from Roman oppression, nor bring universal peace, justice and righteousness. Thoughts of Jesus’ return would have been heavily coloured by these expectations, which would have crowded out statements like "My kingdom is not of this world” and “nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." In the light of the nature of the incarnation and Jesus’ rejection of the temptations to show his power, isn’t it possible that Jesus’ return would be (or is) one of spiritual power rather than one of physical power?

On a practical level, I clearly agree with you that, rather than waiting for Jesus to intervene from on high, we have to draw on the spiritual power available to us now and take action to try to avert the damage being done to the planet.

”Could there be something of the Days of Noah (Lk.17:26) in this growing ecological crisis? That the coming destruction may be judgement at our own hands?”

Unfortunately, the way things usually work, it is the rich and powerful who create most of the damage and the poor and dispossessed who suffer most of the destruction.

"In other words, if you agree with it, it's evidence - if you don't, it's hypothesis/simply confused/wishful thinking etc."

The evidence is the data. The data is as it is - numbers about climate change, atmospheric gasses, the physics and chemistry of what is actually happening in the atmosphere. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain why the data is as it is. The hypothesis is tested by further experimentation - ie, seeking more data. If the data supports the initial hypothesis, it becomes a working model or theory - as far as I understand it, that is the majority view regarding AGW. The experiment continues - if data suggesting a cooling trend continues in one direction, it will radically modify or indeed falsify the initial hypothesis. Alternatively, if it does not continue in that direction, the "warmist" theory will modify to accommodate it, and it will add to our understanding of the mechanisms of climate change.

Of course the jury is still out. There was a stage in the sinking of the Titanic where it was not yet clear that she would go down, but it might have been wise to make sure boats were ready. As far as I can see, the current stage of thinking is that it is increasingly likely (but not conclusive) that climate change is aggravated or caused by human agency. To ignore that in the hope that it will all put itself right is simply short-sighted and foolish. If we take steps to restrict our carbon emissions, and then find the situation wasn't as acute as we thought, we will nevertheless have done something good about our excessive use of fossil fuels.

To be honest, I'm not holding my breath.

From your link...

"The reports attempted to link the Arctic weather that has enveloped the UK with research published by Latif's team in the journal Nature in 2008. The research said that natural fluctuations in ocean temperature could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. In particular, the study concluded that cooling in the oceans could offset global warming, with the average temperature over the decades 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 predicted to be no higher than the average for 1994-2004. Despite clarifications from the scientists at the time, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, the study was widely misreported as signalling a switch from global warming to global cooling.

The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler weather".

Ah, the Guardian!

Mr. Latif carries out research and publishes his findings, which show that the oceans are cooling naturally. Hey, wait a minute, are we not supposed to be saying that the oceans are getting warmer? Cue panic for Mr. Latif and "his team"! (Who pays these guys anyway??) What if they withdraw my funding? No more invites to those exotic conferences? What if I have to get a real job? Must make sure they know I am still on board! Memo to my friends at The Guardian!

The data is published, and no amount of dancing around can get away from your temperature results, Mr. Latif. Perhaps you should have used the trick of the UEA. It nearly worked for them!

"It just doesn't hang together, and what's more, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just this morning, I read that the world is now entering a cooling period, likely to last the best part of thirty years."

The scientist whose work this speculation is based on does not think his work undermines manmade global warming at all – he seems quite annoyed that it should be used in this way. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-...

Paul's warnings in 2 Thess.3:6ff probably referred to members of the congregation/commune who had taken on board the hope of the imminent second coming (as Paul had expounded to them six months earlier in 1 Thessalonians) and given up work to wait for the End. Paul disabuses them. There have been frequent bouts of urgent expectation - the Montanists in the 2nd C, Joachim of Fiore during the Crusades, to say nothing of speculations around both new millennia (Europe was in a state of panic leading up to the year 1,000) or the fevered speculation among charismatic Christians around the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, etc, etc.

No mixed message at all. Jesus said very clearly that no one would know when the Second Coming would happen (Mt.24:36), so anyone depending on his Coming before we run out of fossil fuels or do serious damage to the earth is being very foolish indeed, and using the promise of his Coming as an excuse to continue in wasteful greed. Could there be something of the Days of Noah (Lk.17:26) in this growing ecological crisis? That the coming destruction may be judgement at our own hands?

We have no idea how much time we have on this earth. Paul and his contemporaries didn't expect a further 20 centuries of Christian history, but it has happened, and is continuing. There may well be consequences for our descendants in a century or three from now. Personally, I am more concerned for the world waiting for any grandchildren I might have, because that is the timescale of some trends in climate and environment.

It isn't evidence, it is hypothesis...

In other words, if you agree with it, it's evidence - if you don't, it's hypothesis/simply confused/wishful thinking etc. Actually, this particular study has been carried out by a very serious and highly-regarded group of climatologists, and supported by attested data. The fact that their findings challenge the "warmist thinking", sadly, means that they are automatically dismissed and ridiculed in this way.

Like you say, the jury is still out on this matter.

Yes, I read the same thing. And it is simply confused. It isn't evidence, it is hypothesis, attempting to extrapolate a trend from part of the data.

Is that not precisely what the GWF's have been doing? Of course not because, in your opinion, one side is "evidence", the other side is "simply confused".

Just a month ago during Advent the churches were full of preaching, singing, reading and prayers about the return of Christ, either imminently or at least within the foreseeable future, and the establishment of a new Earth which will be perfect in every respect – including presumably the climate. We were warned to be ready unless he comes tomorrow.

Now we’ve started the New Year with serious worries about what the climate will be like in 500 years time. And there is a lot about this currently on the Methodist website.

Is there something of an anomaly here? Is the Methodist Church giving out a mixed message?

A group of Christians in the USA have declared that they have no intention of changing their lifestyles, which would in any case be totally unnecessary, because Jesus will definitely return before too much damage is done to the climate. Are they being irresponsible like those early Christians who gave up work or decided not to get married or make other commitments in the daily anticipation of Jesus’ return or are they showing more faith in their own preaching and doctrines than the rest of us?

"Trouble is that all the "evidence" you cite would be insufficient to lead to a conviction in court. It is, as best, circumstantial."

Who decides what is real evidence and what is not real evidence? And is the kind of evidence appropriate to a court case the same as that appropriate for a scientific experiment? And is the kind of evidence available to a physicist the same as that available to a chemist or geologist? Or a historian? Sorry, but this simply fails to understand the nature of the problem. As I said in my post, the physics is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated.

"The planet is warming - we are flying aeroplanes - therefore less flying will help to stop the warming."

Well, yes. It would help. It wouldn't solve the problem, because other forms of transport use far more fossil fuels and generate far more greenhouse gasses. As do other aspects of our modern lifestyle. But less flying would certainly help. Why is that a wrong statement to make?

"It just doesn't hang together, and what's more, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just this morning, I read that the world is now entering a cooling period, likely to last the best part of thirty years."

Yes, I read the same thing. And it is simply confused. It isn't evidence, it is hypothesis, attempting to extrapolate a trend from part of the data. It might be right, if the data which continues to be gathered continues to support it. Or it might be wishful thinking. It might be a blip, or it might be part of the natural "ups and downs" of climate change, in which the general trend is up - and that is what the data so far seems to suggest.

"I think that any judge would have to direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty, case not proven.""

Arguably. But "not proven" is a Scots legal verdict, often interpreted as "not guilty - but don't do it again." It would be better to suggest that the jury should stay out a bit longer, because it is quite likely that the culprit will continue to offend, and the world will get warmer because of our greenhouse gasses.

Surely there is little dispute that this generation is using up the resources of the planet much more greedily than they should for the sake of future generations.

That is very clear, and beyond dispute. But perhaps the reason for this is staring us in the face, but is too sensitive to be mentioned.

One hundred years ago, the population of the world was around one and a half billion; it is now approaching seven billion and counting. Most of the increase is in Asia, and people there want to drive cars, travel by air and have large families. Should they be denied these things that we in the west have taken for granted?

It is therefore inevitable that this generation will use up the resources of the planet on an unprecedented scale. How we deal with it is much more complicated than imposing green taxes on our already overtaxed population.

Trouble is that all the "evidence" you cite would be insufficient to lead to a conviction in court. It is, as best, circumstantial.

The planet is warming - we are flying aeroplanes - therefore less flying will help to stop the warming.

It just doesn't hang together, and what's more, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just this morning, I read that the world is now entering a cooling period, likely to last the best part of thirty years.

Who do we believe? Those who shout the loudest? Those who are making a living from their "research"? The politicians???

I dunno, but I think that any judge would have to direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty, case not proven"

Surely the message from the Tower of Babel story is a long way from “God swots us if we try to get too clever.” It’s actually the obverse of what the story says. If the people of the world recognize their common humanity, understand the other person’s point of view and co-operate, they can achieve a great deal to resolve the problems of the world. It is when we lapse into tribalism, nationalism, exclusive faith groups or individualism that things start to fall apart.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of greed and selfishness typified by the thinking behind “There is no such thing as society.” As in Copenhagen, talk of co-operation seems always to be prefaced by “What am I going to get out of it?” In the article that prompted this discussion, the question was raised whether we would be better off outside the EU. No consideration of whether our membership helps European unity or world peace but - Am I personally better off? I suspect that in the coming election many will vote for what they consider to be best for their personal benefit than what would be best for the country.

There may be some dispute over global warming and the extent to which humans contribute to any climate change, but surely there is little dispute that this generation is using up the resources of the planet much more greedily than they should for the sake of future generations. Our prosperity seems to take precedence over everything else. If talk of global warming leads to co-operation between countries and to a reduction in the rate at which we are consuming the finite natural resources, I don’t really care whether the environmentalists are proved eventually to be wrong.

Paul: "What evidence do you have that the activities of human beings are changing the climate? Precisely none, zero, zilch."

Wrong. The change in climate is being linked with the rise in greenhouse gasses. The physics of their effect is easily demonstrated - their molecular structure means they form a blanket structure in the upper atmosphere through which it is harder for radiated energy to penetrate than the simpler molecular structure of oxygen and nitrogen. Natural CO2 has always been an adequate blanket, but has been a lower proportion of atmospheric gasses for millennia. Since the industrial revolution, we have been producing vastly increased amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. The climate is changing, and the two processes appear to be linked.

Now, my last sentence gives what I feel to be a proper methodological balance. A phenomenon is occurring - climate change. A hypothesis for this process was proffered - greenhouse gasses. So far, experimental data appears to support the hypothesis, so it is accepted as a theory. Further experiment and observation takes place, attempting to falsify the theory (see my earlier comments about verificationism and falsificationism). Thus far, the theory seems to be holding fairly well, needing only some modification rather than replacement. It may yet change, if for example despite continuing carbon production we see the earth's temperature begin to fall steadily. That is the nature of experimentation, and proper scientific methodology.

So whatever the implications of the UEA scandal, your broad brush rejection of my comments is simply wrong. There clearly is evidence, and thus far, the evidence seems to support anthropogenic global warming.

"Whether or not the Tower of Babel was an historical event is utterly irrelevant to this discussion."

I agree. Sparty is absolutely right. (There you are - Tony and Sparty agree - enjoy it while it lasts!)

Furthermore, asking questions about biblical historicity often falls foul of anachronistic understandings of history.

(Oops - did it again! Long words...)

Simply - the ancients told stories. Some of them include or were based on events which actually happened. But the ancients didn't understand history in our modern scientific sense. Neither did anyone else until the Enlightenment. So analysing biblical texts as if they were written by moderns often misses the point, and fails to see what the ancients would have seen - like the reason for the story of Babel.

Do you really accept the bible’s account of...

It is a recurring theme on this board that whenever anyone uses teaching from the bible, there is an immediate riposte attacking the credibility of scripture, usually asking similar "questions" as in this latest attempt. That particular tactic became tiresome ages ago, and I just groan when I see it being trotted out again and again.

So a brief response (and no more)...

Whether or not the Tower of Babel was an historical event is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

The fact is that it is included in God's word to us for a reason. As with much of the bible, we would do well to learn and apply the lessons rather than argue about the historicity of the events.

S

Your circumnabulatory peridiscombobulations don't change the fact that it's freezing here!

;p

All this talk of science and then two of you write as if the story of the Tower of Babel was an historical event. Are you suggesting that God really took umbrage because he was worried that humans might actually build a tower up to Heaven? Is Heaven really just above the sky with angels able to go up and down ladders between Heaven and Earth and with humans capable of building could a tower up to the sky? Those who live in the penthouse suite of the new Burj Dubai must be God’s neighbours!

Do you really accept the bible’s account of why there are different languages in the world over the explanations given by the history and science of linguistics?

And all this talk of God swotting us for being too clever! Well, I suppose it does say “I am a jealous God.”

From the Independent, 2000

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

"Still into your long words, I see..."

Hee, hee...
I used a longish word in a study group a few years back, and one of the women said "You're a sesquipedalianist!" We all looked blank, until she said "That's someone who likes long words."

Classic case of "Takes one to know one!"

I have absolutely no problem with anyone mentioning God. I do have a problem with people hiding behind him, or blaming him for things which aren't his fault, or ignoring facts because they don't fit their picture of God.

I don't see that as arrogant. I don't see either Babel or Knut anywhere. I do see honest questions, backed up by serious methodology. "The preserve of God alone"? Sorry, pal, a bit obscurantist for my taste.

Sorry to mention God, Tony, but after all, he is the creator, preserver and governor of the world on which we live. Climate is his domain (we have his word on this), and it is his preserve, "obscurantist" or not.

Still into your long words, I see - remind me not to play Scrabble with you!

Your pal,

Sparty

"The scientists who are trying to show that we can change the climate by our human actions are encroaching on an area which is the preserve of God alone. It's the Canute Complex, the Babel Syndrome all over again."

Well, no. The problem with the Tower of Babel was that men were TRYING to build up to heaven. It was an arrogant attempt to usurp god-like powers, for which hey were punished.

The current situation is not about TRYING to change or control the climate. If Knut is anywhere in sight, he's on the beach wondering where the sea went. Or wondering why he's up to his neck in water when he hadn't realised he's on the beach.

The fact of the matter is that we have affected our environment. The Caspian Sea is a shadow of its former size. The Jordan is reduced to a trickle, because of the amount of water which is being extracted - which means the Dead Sea could actually dry out; it's already lower than it used to be. Now, there are lots of changes in the world environment whose cause is disputed, human or not. These ones are not disputed. They are directly caused by human agency, and they do have a direct effect on the environment. What scientists are exploring is whether we have in fact so affected our environment that it is affecting the climate. I have been interested in meteorology for years, and one of the first things we learn is that the earth's climate and weather systems are driven by the sun. That's a huge engine, for which we have no controls. However, I do have a sunshade, and I can keep it off me. The underlying principle to the theory of AGW is that we have unwittingly put up enough sunshades/closed enough windows to affect the climate system. It is not impossible.

If enough people jump up and down at the same time, a strong bridge will collapse. The question in this argument is whether enough of us have been jumping, without realising the consequences. All the scientists are doing is discovering the consequences - or working back from the consequences to see if anyone jumped.

I don't see that as arrogant. I don't see either Babel or Knut anywhere. I do see honest questions, backed up by serious methodology. "The preserve of God alone"? Sorry, pal, a bit obscurantist for my taste.

Actually, your's, Paul, and those like you, who seriously want us to believe that mankind can change the climate. Your ancestors were probably involved in building the Tower of Babel!

That is precisely the point.

There are some things which are beyond us, some limits to our power and control as mankind. Get too near, and God will swot us down to size. The scientists who are trying to show that we can change the climate by our human actions are encroaching on an area which is the preserve of God alone. It's the Canute Complex, the Babel Syndrome all over again.

S

"See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html"

OK, I checked it out. I was almost persuaded, until I arrived at the signatories at the bottom of the page. Dr. Phil Jones is right there. The same Dr. Jones who has "stood down" as head of the climate research unit at the UEA. following publication of his emails, including the one about the "trick" he used to "hide the decline" in temperatures!

And if you want to use the Met Office as an expert source, would this be the same Met Office who promised us a barbecue summer last year (it poured with rain), and followed it with a prediction that we would have a mild winter (look out your window!)?

If it were not so serious, it would be comical.

Paul 2

"I was running with a theory which has been offered to explain climate change, and which is supported by a fair amount of evidence."

Oh, really?

What evidence do you have that the activities of human beings are changing the climate? Precisely none, zero, zilch. Of course, the UEA can always create some for you if you pay them enough.

Those emails from UEA are truly fascinating. Even beyond the manipulation of the data, it's the lifestyle which they enjoy which amazes me.

"See you next week in .... Beijing/Montreal/Nice/Chicago/Tokyo/Bali/Copenhagen..."

These people are swanning around the world, travelling and staying first-class at our expense, enjoying their junkets. No surprise that they want to keep this show on the road!

Paul (The Realist)

How could I possibly disagree with someone who uses such long words?

I wrote:
"My gut feeling is to go with the theory of AGW until it is completely falsified."

Sparty replied:
"No-one can prove a negative, Tony. Surely you should wait until the case for global warming has been completely proven?"

On the contrary. I wasn't trying to prove a negative. I was running with a theory which has been offered to explain climate change, and which is supported by a fair amount of evidence. Proper scientific methodology is falsificationism, not verificationism. The original hypothesis was suppoerted by sufficient evidence to become a theory. Experimental method will attempt to falsify the theory by testing it against the evidence, and modifying it or replacing it as necessary.

To experiment by verificationism is flawed - you may prove that A+B=C 1000 times, but if it doesn't happen on the 1001st time, it is falsified.

My gut feeling is to go with the theory of AGW until it is completely falsified.

That's a fine explanation of the cold weather, but hardly a scientific conclusion. No-one can prove a negative, Tony. Surely you should wait until the case for global warming has been completely proven?

In the meantime, if the GWFs want to tax us, deny cheap fuel to the developing world and centralise power with the political elite, they need to prove their case.

They haven't done so. Indeed, by their blatant manipulation of the evidence, they have created deep distrust in their objectivity.

If you care to read any of the online blogs and dicussions on this subject, you will see that the vast, vast majority of contributors have the same misgivings as Tim, the OP on this thread.

S

I wonder if I should be paying more attention to a handful of people who've spent five minutes trawling the internet for a string of links to more palatable news.

Paul,

You really should not be so dismissive of people who disagree with you.

For the record, I know Nigel Calder. He is a friend of mine, and we have had many long discussions on this subject and others relating to science and religion. Believe me, he is a very serious scientist and broadcaster, and I have not simply spent "five minutes trawling the internet". Indeed, I find that suggestion rather offensive.

I also note that you have completely ignored the comments from Nigel, presumably because they don't fit well with your point of view. But they cannot be dismissed or ignored. He has many friends in the scientific community who share his views. As he tells me, they dare not speak out, because their funding (and livelihood) would disappear overnight.

That is the climate (excuse the word) within which this subject is being addressed in the scientific community. It takes courage to speak out against the prevailing wisdom, and those who do are vilified, suppressed, dismissed, ignored and marginalised. Just like Galileo before them.

Which, if you take the time to read Nigel's article, is "how science works".

Regards,

Sparty

It seems to me that when it is hot, it's global warming, but when it is cold, it's "just the weather"!

"In future, please read my previous posts covering this before responding inanely."

If you can't cool the sun, at least cool your language please.

I realise that you feel strongly about this, and that you have little or no time for those who disagree with you, but courtesy is important on here.

:p

"I didn't realise the BBC was supposed to have a policy of reporting every piece of stolen private information it is leaked on the news, no matter how ambiguous."

This was momentous news which, when it got out, was on the front page of newspapers all around the world. The fact that the BBC suppressed it for several weeks is very surprising to say the least, and can only be understood in the light of Peter Sissons' quote.

"I happen to think the case is not as clear as is being made out."

You have already said that, in your view, the duplicity of these emails is evidence of their integrity. Astonishing logic, I know, but it's not really worth arguing with such a mindset.

Actually, your's, Paul, and those like you, who seriously want us to believe that mankind can change the climate. Your ancestors were probably involved in building the Tower of Babel!

There is no such thing as "man-made climate change", so it's still a poor use of words. Not unless you can arrange to turn the sun down a notch or two, or even up, given the present weather.

In future, please read my previous posts covering this before responding inanely. Of course I can't turn the sun up or down. I can cause the emission of gasses into the atmosphere that trap a little more of the sun's heat though. I personally can't produce enough of these gasses to fix the fairly cold winter that we're having. If we all work together we might be able to do it, but we'll regret it when we get sunstroke later in the year.

The coldest winter in thirty years apparently. Wonder how the GWFs are going to explain this away?

Fairly simply, and it doesn't even require Tony's Gulf Stream explanation. The climate is chaotic. Sometimes temperatures are above average, sometimes they are below average, but averaged over a long time, they tend to form a pattern. December 2009 was the coldest the UK has seen for 14 years, yet globally, it was the 5th hottest on record. Do you understand how that is not a contradiction?

Paul.

The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
I didn't realise the BBC was supposed to have a policy of reporting every piece of stolen private information it is leaked on the news, no matter how ambiguous.

Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy" to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
Presumably this is why the BBC cancelled a series of programmes in 2007 that would have encouraged people to act to reduce CO2 emissions because of impartiality issues.

The BBC is often accused of partiality by both sides of a great number of debates. The balance of the complaints usually suggests they are quite impartial.

Paul.