religion and global warming

hiwayman

Climate change has been compared to religion in the past, but is it now becoming official?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

hiwayman

I should add, that I feel anyone who leans to the green side may find themselves discriminated against in a job application for fear that they may not be willing to carry out duties that may present some treat to the environment and may have a right to take such a position.

cnocbui

Of course it is a religion. You even have zealots calling for non-believers to to be put on trial for their blasphemy.

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?”
(http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

.

http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

homer911

Interesting post over on the Christianity Forum referring to a survey in the Irish times the other day - "Green Party Members least likely to attend church"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055728753

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Of course it is a religion.

For some, yes. For others, it is no more mystical or spiritual than physics or chemistry.

SeanW

Global warming would be an Orwellian dream, as it gives legitimacy to supranational institutions, as well as a whole array of new taxes (to expropriate wealth from the lower and middle classes) and regulations (governments and bureaucrats love these) in different countries. It would also make Al Gore one of the first eco-Billionaires, as he and other political elites have large stakes in carbon exchanges and other shaky/worthless ventures that depend on global warming views being taken as gospel.

That and when you consider the reactions of most environmental group leaders to the one energy generation technology proven to be able to displace filthy options like coal, i.e. nuclear, its all hysterical opposition and scaremongering the likes of which would make Bush, Cheney and Co. look like amaeturs, and propoganda (usually making liberal use of children to evoke and emotional, rather than logical response ... gee I wonder why).

At least one poster on these boards has called for a government intervention to elimitate population and economic growth altogether. I've read extreme talk of mandatory vegetarianism in places.

Even if I still felt that nuclear energy was a bad idea, I would find that position impossible to maintain if I thought the extreme measures above were necessary to stave off imminent global climate-disaster.

Given all of the above, it would really not surprise me if the whole climate change thing is a scam. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some one-world'ers pushing Greenpeace's buttons to whip up anti-nuclear frenzy, since this technology is the only reliable way to generate clean energy and would give the people of the world an end-run around the myriad of carbon taxes and carbon exchanges and carbon-related laws that are being planned.

Most religions are glorified fraud, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Global Warming being among them.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

At least one poster on these boards has called for a government intervention to elimitate population and economic growth altogether. I've read extreme talk of mandatory vegetarianism in places.

Every movement has it's extremists. It's very easy but ultimately pointless to try to dismiss the whole movement by focusing on the lunatic fringe.

SeanW wrote: »

Most religions are glorified fraud, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Global Warming being among them.

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

hiwayman

taconnol wrote: »

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

Climate change is based on scientific evidence and theory much of which is questionable (as all scientific theory should be) but many would argue that their religion is FACT!

Macha

hiwayman wrote: »

Climate change is based on scientific evidence and theory much of which is questionable (as all scientific theory should be)

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

hiwayman wrote: »

but many would argue that their religion is FACT!

Actually, many religions revel in the fact that so much of what they're about is mystical and beyond explanation. ie, dogma.

cnocbui

taconnol wrote: »

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

The UK Met office has for some years been treating CO2 driven global warming as dogma and factroing it into their models. I find it interesting that their long term seasonal predictions over tha last several years have been spectacularly wrong.

I found some rather interesting tid bits where religion and global warming were mentioned in the same breath. Particularly the second one where the head of the UK Met office Hadley centre seems to be engaged in rallying thr faithful to help with his crusade:

Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/part_3/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Nothing more tellingly reflects the Met Office's partisanship, however, than the fact that its present chairman is Robert Napier, a green activist who previously ran WWF UK, one of the most vociferous of the climate change lobby groups. Mr Napier now helps run not only the Met Office....He is also a director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a pressure group dedicated to using the world's religions to push the same agenda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6257987/What-makes-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

The UK Met office has for some years been treating CO2 driven global warming as dogma and factroing it into their models. I find it interesting that their long term seasonal predictions over tha last several years have been spectacularly wrong.

Examples?

hiwayman

taconnol wrote: »

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

If God appeared on earth in person and declared himself and preformed all kinds of astonishing miracle, then we would have proof of his existence. No need to question our faith anymore :rolleyes:
Likewise, when we see airliners takeoff from airports every day, I think it proves the science. I haven't heard of anyone questioning such science, but I have heard scientists question GW.

hiwayman

this is an exert from the guardian yesterday.

A British judge has decided that belief in human influence on climate has the status of religious conviction. This is being celebrated as a success by some activists. As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming. Is Jeremy Clarkson similarly entitled to protection if he declares himself a conscientious objector and wants to keep his 4x4?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/05/climate-change-ruling-beyond-belief-religion

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

Examples?

The second link in my previous post detailed them:

forecast that Britain would enjoy a "barbecue summer" this year was only the latest of a string of predictions that proved wildly off-target. Three years ago it announced that 2007 would be "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures plunged by 0.7 degrees Celsius, more than the world's entire net warming in the 20th century. Last winter, it forecast, would be "milder and drier than average", just before we enjoyed one of our coldest and snowiest winters for years. And in 2009 it promised us one of the "five warmest years ever", complete with that "barbecue summer", when temperatures have been struggling to reach their average of the past three decades.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

...I have heard scientists question GW.

How many climatologists are among those "scientists"?

cnocbui wrote: »

The second link in my previous post detailed them:

It would appear The Telegraph is confusing weather with climate.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

It would appear The Telegraph is confusing weather with climate.

Although I am an avid reader of newspapers from around the world (thanks Mr. Internet), I know enough about journalism to treat most stories with a hefty dose of scepticism.

While I may laugh quietly, or sometimes even out loud, when I realise that the middle classes drive to the bottle bank in their SUV's, or that Al Gore flies around the world in his private jet airliner scolding everyone else about their carbon footprint, (and apparantly leaving on all the lights at home), I really don't know whether man is overly responsible for climate change, or whether its all part of the natural cycles of the world.

It seems to be a fact that the predictions by some who accept that man is responsible for climate change have not come true, and that others seem to cling to the number of polar bears or the like, claiming it to be evidence, I am still not convinced either way.

It's often the case that the belief of the many is not always right, and the heretic if often proved right in the end.

I'm not sure that will be the case with global warming, but I am also not convinced that the doom mongers are also right. The evidence is just not there yet.

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

How many climatologists are among those "scientists"?

According to some polls about 18% of climatologists question AGW. 82% say we play some roll.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

Now I know you'll find lots in that link to argue the AGW case, but its not the point.
The point here is that the science is questioned By qualified people who are risking the careers and reputations to do so.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

The science of physics is very questionable, and will be for a long time to come, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what may be possible, and have many unanswered large questions to answer to explain why exactly our universe is the way it is.

Global warming will never be able to be proven factually, we lack a control system without us existing to compare against, and thus will never know would the effects have occurred otherwise, we can say, statistically, that we are very likely to be the cause, but factually, as in, I ate a sandwich today, no.

And even going back to planes, if the physics of planes wasn't questionable, then the Boeing 787, costing billions to design, would be flying passengers right now, rather than trying to figure out how to keep it's wings attached at high loads.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

According to some polls about 18% of climatologists question AGW. 82% say we play some roll.

I would imagine that about 100% of climatologists question climate change on a daily basis – that’s their job after all. But, the fact remains that the published scientific evidence strongly supports the anthropogenic global warming theory. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, given the elementary physical basis for the theory.

hiwayman wrote: »

The point here is that the science is questioned By qualified people who are risking the careers and reputations to do so.

I’d be extremely concerned if ‘the science’ was not being questioned, particularly by those who work in the field - that’s the very essence of science.

astrofool wrote: »

The science of physics is very questionable, and will be for a long time to come, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what may be possible, and have many unanswered large questions to answer to explain why exactly our universe is the way it is.

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

astrofool

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

ConsiderThis

astrofool wrote: »

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

WHy is that surprising? One is mathematically worked out, and the other is, in your own words, "predicting"

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

there is a massive difference between the behaviour of one satellite and prediciting its oribtal path, and trying to establish an accurate model of the earths climate.... they are on two completly different levels.

the number of reference points and information needed to predict the cliamte is staggering when compared to one satellites orbit. I am sorry but you cannot compare the two.

hiwayman

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

djpbarry

astrofool wrote: »

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

Weather is notoriously difficult to accurately predict, yes. But of course, climate and weather are not the same thing.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

WHy is that surprising? One is mathematically worked out, and the other is, in your own words, "predicting"

I would use the term ‘projecting’ (implying a probable outcome) rather than ‘predicting’ (which implies a possible outcome).

robtri wrote: »

the number of reference points and information needed to predict the cliamte is staggering when compared to one satellites orbit.

Perhaps, but the number of variables required depends largely on the resolution of the model – climate change projections for Ireland are likely to be less accurate than global projections. This also raises the question of how accurate climate models need to be – what margin of error between projection and observation is acceptable?

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

You began the thread by stating that climate change (not science) had been compared to religion - a discussion of the underlying science was inevitable. What exactly were you expecting?

ConsiderThis

hiwayman wrote: »

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

here's what I think; I think climate change sceptics probably agree that its akin to a religion, and climate change believers probably don't.

(ducks and runs for cover....)

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

You began the thread by stating that climate change (not science) had been compared to religion - a discussion of the underlying science was inevitable. What exactly were you expecting?

Climate change is supposed to be scientific is it not, or perhaps you dont think so! Anyway the argument about GW has been hammered out here before, whether or not its natural or human caused, The issue as to becoming like a religion is a separate issue.

Rosette

Since 2006's UN report on Global Warming, those who deny climate change are part of the fringe. How do participants of this thread feel about being part of the consumer capitalist religion, the one where participation in the good of community is destroyed in favour of the appetite of the individual?

People slavishly follow Murdoch's publications, X-Factor, tacky magazines, and (my pet hate) Top Gear's middle-aged baggy bellies. If anything is a religion, X-Factor shows the power of branding and herd mentality that a proper religion exemplifies. Jedward are the new gladiators in the Colloseum before Rome fell.

About two years ago I realised that the world was not going to use this opportunity to tackle inequality and poverty, but that climate change would just accentuate and accelerate the inequality of distribution of resources, leaving some kids to live in shantytowns and some kids to inherit the world.

In the Middle Ages, a series of plagues led to a big drop in the workforce in England, leading to a shortage of workers, known as serfs, effectively slaves. Lords from neighbouring estates started to compete with each other for workers, eventually giving people notions of freedom and property by the formation of the US and the French Revolution. With the rising global population, the financial crisis of 2008/09, and of course, the struggle for resources such as oil, water and land, we are reversing these freedoms. Witness biometric passports and anti-terror legislation like the Patriot Act. We don't properly recognise the effects of climate change and resource struggles that are happening now.

After the inaction to the UN report on Climate Change in 2006, I accept that we humans are 98% chimpanzee and the other 2% is nothing special. Tabloid science won't make you smart.

ConsiderThis

Rosette wrote: »

People slavishly follow Murdoch's publications, X-Factor, tacky magazines, and (my pet hate) Top Gear's middle-aged baggy bellies. If anything is a religion, X-Factor shows the power of branding and herd mentality that a proper religion exemplifies. Jedward are the new gladiators in the Colloseum before Rome fell.

I know Rupert Murdock is one of the middle classes favourite people to hate, but all the things you list are choices we all have to make for ourselves. I have never seen X-factor, don't buy tacky magasines, and used to like Top gear when it was about the cars and not about the presenters, with the cars taking a back seat. So I haven't watched Top Gear for years.

I recognise something in what you say about the herd mentality, and also recognise that, when it comes to climate change, there is a sort of unpleasantness directed at many who question.

Remember, people who can think for themselves usually are proved right in the end. I prefer thinking to herd following any day!

Caoimhín

Sure the whole "Green" movement is a sort of a religion, complete with high priests and "holier than thou" mentality.

ConsiderThis

Caoimhín wrote: »

Sure the whole "Green" movement is a sort of a religion, complete with high priests and "holier than thou" mentality.

I'm guessing you are a sceptic?

Caoimhín

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I'm guessing you are a sceptic?

Not really, the evidence seems to be solid. What pisses me off is the hysteria and preaching by the zealots.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

here's what I think; I think climate change sceptics probably agree that its akin to a religion, and climate change believers probably don't.

To compare the theory of climate change to religion is to treat it as fairytale (in my opinion) and dismiss the supporting evidence. It also implies that those who support the theory do so blindly, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their ‘beliefs’. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the position of the climate change denialist bears far more resemblance to that of the fervent religious believer.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I recognise something in what you say about the herd mentality, and also recognise that, when it comes to climate change, there is a sort of unpleasantness directed at many who question.

I disagree. There is an ‘unpleasantness’ directed at those who deny, rather than question. There’s nothing wrong with questioning anything.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

Anyway the argument about GW has been hammered out here before, whether or not its natural or human caused, The issue as to becoming like a religion is a separate issue.

A suggestion of ‘religious belief’ will inevitably lead to a discussion of evidence.

djpbarry

Rosette wrote: »

How do participants of this thread feel about being part of the consumer capitalist religion, the one where participation in the good of community is destroyed in favour of the appetite of the individual?

As fascinating a subject as this is, it is off-topic.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

To compare the theory of climate change to religion is to treat it as fairytale (in my opinion) and dismiss the supporting evidence. It also implies that those who support the theory do so blindly, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their ‘beliefs’. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the position of the climate change denialist bears far more resemblance to that of the fervent religious believer.
I disagree. There is an ‘unpleasantness’ directed at those who deny, rather than question. There’s nothing wrong with questioning anything.

I think the religious comparison was less to do with the origins of the subject, and more to do with the fervence of some not only to believe it, but also to the way some try to rubbish those who question their beliefs.

I suppose one mans "supporting evidence" is another mans pin the tail on the tail on the donkey blindfolded.

For example, the computer models on which many of the claims are made, and which are used to justify many of the claims, are in themselves predictions based on guesses. Yet there are those who get very upset at others who point that out.

Does that sound similar to devout christians who get very upset at some who don;t believe in God and who question the contradicting events in the bible?

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I think the religious comparison was less to do with the origins of the subject, and more to do with the fervence of some not only to believe it, but also to the way some try to rubbish those who question their beliefs.

Perhaps you could illustrate this point with a specific example?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I suppose one mans "supporting evidence" is another mans pin the tail on the tail on the donkey blindfolded.

When I refer to supporting evidence, I’m referring to published scientific literature. Now, one can dismiss this evidence if they wish, but in order to be consistent, all published scientific literature (not just that pertaining to climate change) would have to be dismissed. But of course, this is never the case. In fact, deniers and (sometimes) sceptics are often only too happy to cite scientific evidence which (apparently) supports their position.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

For example, the computer models on which many of the claims are made, and which are used to justify many of the claims, are in themselves predictions based on guesses.

Are they? Again, could you provide a specific example? Perhaps you could identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Does that sound similar to devout christians who get very upset at some who don;t believe in God and who question the contradicting events in the bible?

But it’s not quite the same thing, is it? It’s impossible to prove that God does not exist, in that it is not possible to prove a negative. This affords the religious-minded among us a certain degree of protection from the scientific method (or so they believe). However, in the case of climate change, or more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming theory, it is not necessary to disprove the physical basis for the theory, but merely propose an alternative (based on observable evidence, preferably). However, as yet, no alternative explanation has stood up to scrutiny.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps you could illustrate this point with a specific example?
When I refer to supporting evidence, I’m referring to published scientific literature. Now, one can dismiss this evidence if they wish, but in order to be consistent, all published scientific literature (not just that pertaining to climate change) would have to be dismissed. But of course, this is never the case. In fact, deniers and (sometimes) sceptics are often only too happy to cite scientific evidence which (apparently) supports their position.
Are they? Again, could you provide a specific example? Perhaps you could identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved?
But it’s not quite the same thing, is it? It’s impossible to prove that God does not exist, in that it is not possible to prove a negative. This affords the religious-minded among us a certain degree of protection from the scientific method (or so they believe). However, in the case of climate change, or more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming theory, it is not necessary to disprove the physical basis for the theory, but merely propose an alternative (based on observable evidence, preferably). However, as yet, no alternative explanation has stood up to scrutiny.

I wasn't actually just talking about you, and that you always refer to supporting evidence. I was talking more generally.

As I have said elsewhere , the only real truth we have is that 2+2=4, and to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is meaningless. Some people believe in god, others don't, ans its up to each of us to decide. So I can't prove he exists or not to anyone else, only to myself.

The computer modelling used to predict climate change is not infalliable. The outcome from the programmes used depend on the parameters input by whoever is programming it. Quite obviously the predictions depend on the inputs and the parameters.

I dislike the term "climte change deniers" as it is pejorative, and has connotations of "holocaust deniers". I admit that , by nature, I am a sceptic which I define as someone who needs proof before believing a hypothesis.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I wasn't actually just talking about you, and that you always refer to supporting evidence. I was talking more generally.

Which is probably why I asked you to be more specific.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

As I have said elsewhere , the only real truth we have is that 2+2=4, and to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is meaningless. Some people believe in god, others don't, ans its up to each of us to decide. So I can't prove he exists or not to anyone else, only to myself.

I don’t know what you’re getting at here or whether this is a response to something I said? My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence, the existence of a deity cannot. A theory that cannot be validated in such a way is generally not considered to be terribly scientific.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The computer modelling used to predict climate change is not infalliable.

I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The outcome from the programmes used depend on the parameters input by whoever is programming it. Quite obviously the predictions depend on the inputs and the parameters.

Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)? I actually have a link to one such project in my sig – perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a critique of the BOINC project and inform the good folks at Berkeley as to where they are going wrong?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I dislike the term "climte change deniers" as it is pejorative, and has connotations of "holocaust deniers".

No, it doesn’t. The term “denier” is appropriate in cases were an individual refuses to acknowledge to be true (or even probable) something that has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I admit that , by nature, I am a sceptic which I define as someone who needs proof before believing a hypothesis.

Define “proof”.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.
Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)?

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, by a country mile, contributing 95% of all global warming. A lot of the water vapour in the atmosphere can be found in the form of clouds, which play a very important and very complex role in terms of regulating overall climate.

Clouds are so complex that none of the climate models model them and so they should be ignored outright. It is a bit like a traffic model that didn't' include lorries and busses.

None of the models predicted the current gloabal cooling, prior to it happening, so their predictive capacity is next to nil.

The lack of cloud modeling and very poor or simplistic handling of water vapour means climate models are not fit for purpose and so should be disregarded.

We do not have anything remotely approaching enough understanding of all the variables and processes that drive climate, nor anything approaching the computer capacity to run a model that incorporates even what is known, so the idea of people seriously touting any long term credible predictive capacity to climate models would be laughable, if they weren't actually making such claims.

Then there's the Sun...

Caoimhín

djpbarry wrote: »

Define “proof”.

'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

Which is probably why I asked you to be more specific.
I don’t know what you’re getting at here or whether this is a response to something I said? My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence, the existence of a deity cannot. A theory that cannot be validated in such a way is generally not considered to be terribly scientific.
I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.
Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)? I actually have a link to one such project in my sig – perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a critique of the BOINC project and inform the good folks at Berkeley as to where they are going wrong?
No, it doesn’t. The term “denier” is appropriate in cases were an individual refuses to acknowledge to be true (or even probable) something that has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it.
Define “proof”.

Thanks for your reply.

I am not "dismissive" ( again a pejorative term) of man made modelling systems. I don't know of any other modelling systems which are not man made.

What I said is that they are subject to the criteria input (by man), and the system (generated by man), to produce results. In the case of climate models, they are predicting what might happen at some time in the future.

You say that "...My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence..." and its obvious that models which predict the future will have to wait to see if what they predict comes true. That doesn't become evidence until the future become the present.

This thread is about how climate change has similarities to religion, and to try to turn it into a "you are a denier" " and "I know the truth" argument seems to be in the wrong place.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Clouds are so complex that none of the climate models model them...

Absolute nonsense – I have a model running on my computer as we speak that includes cloud formation patterns. As far as I am aware, NASA even has a dedicated cloud modelling and analysis research group (I doubt it’s the only one in the world).

cnocbui wrote: »

None of the models predicted the current gloabal cooling, prior to it happening...

I think it’s a little premature to be talking about global cooling, but anyway, check out ‘Scenario C’ in Hansen et al. (1988). I’d also suggest you have a glance at Figure SPM.4 from the most recent IPCC report (Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers).

cnocbui wrote: »

Then there's the Sun...

Indeed; has the behaviour of the sun varied much over the last few decades? The available evidence suggests it has not.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

What I said is that they are subject to the criteria input (by man), and the system (generated by man), to produce results. In the case of climate models, they are predicting what might happen at some time in the future.

Actually, you said they are ‘predicting’ based on ‘guesses’. I would say they are projecting based on observations of past behaviour of our climate.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

You say that "...My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence..." and its obvious that models which predict the future will have to wait to see if what they predict comes true.

See my previous post.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

This thread is about how climate change has similarities to religion...

You’ve yet to demonstrate those similarities.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

Absolute nonsense – I have a model running on my computer as we speak that includes cloud formation patterns. As far as I am aware, NASA even has a dedicated cloud modelling and analysis research group (I doubt it’s the only one in the world).

That's news to me and even the IPCC, I believe. Great to hear you have managed to solve the problem. Could you please post a graphic of the predicted cloud pattern over Ireland at 22:30 UTC on 17th Nov. 2009.

Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.

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

If you want to model the Earth's climate, you would by implication want that model to include, and accurately represent, relevant large scale and important mechanisms, would you not?

Something like water vapour perhaps?

Water vapor is not only important for Earth’s ra-
diative balance as the dominant greenhouse gas of the
atmosphere. It is also an active player in dynamic pro-
cesses that shape the global circulation of the atmo-
sphere and thus climate
...

But that water vapor plays
an active and important role in dynamics globally is
less widely appreciated, and how it does so is only
beginning to be investigated.

....

WATER VAPOR AND THE DYNAMICS OF CLIMATE
CHANGES
Tapio Schneider
California Institute of
Technology.

Paul A. O’Gorman
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Xavier Levine
California Institute of
Technology.

30-Aug-09

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.4410

I would have thought that it would be rather difficult to include in a model, processes that are "only beginning to be investigated." Neat trick if you can pull it off, but I do have my doubts.

I think it’s a little premature to be talking about global cooling, but anyway, check out ‘Scenario C’ in Hansen et al. (1988).

You mean the one where they state?: "scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000."

Was there a "rapid curtailment" of such emissions or was there rather "continued exponential trace gas growth", the assumed conditions for Scenario A? The model did not predict anything if it's main assumption was not met.

Indeed; has the behaviour of the sun varied much over the last few decades? The available evidence suggests it has not.

How do you work that one out? We are currently undergoing the most prolonged solar minimum in nearly a century. The last solar minimum that exceeded the length of this one was the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) A period which saw a 2 degree decline in temperature in Europe over twenty years.

Cosmic ray output from the Sun is at the highest levels ever measured and the current Total Solar Irradiance is at the lowest level since accurate measurements were made possible (1979)

"We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm?list1301588

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Could you please post a graphic of the predicted cloud pattern over Ireland at 22:30 UTC on 17th Nov. 2009.

weather ≠ climate

cnocbui wrote: »

Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.

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

So climate models do simulate clouds? Because you just said that none do and, as such, the models should be ignored?

cnocbui wrote: »

I would have thought that it would be rather difficult to include in a model, processes that are "only beginning to be investigated."

It would indeed, but of course, the authors are not implying that cloud processes are ‘only beginning to be investigated’, because that would be laughable. Here's an oft-cited book on the subject published in 1992.

cnocbui wrote: »

You mean the one where they state?: "scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000."

Sorry, I meant Scenario ‘B’.

cnocbui wrote: »

Was there a "rapid curtailment" of such emissions or was there rather "continued exponential trace gas growth", the assumed conditions for Scenario A? The model did not predict anything if it's main assumption was not met.

Real-world forcings have followed Scenario ‘B’ quite closely, yes.

cnocbui wrote: »

Cosmic ray output from the Sun is at the highest levels ever measured...

Cosmic rays don’t come from the sun (the clue is in the name), but anyway, there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.

cnocbui wrote: »

...the current Total Solar Irradiance is at the lowest level since accurate measurements were made possible (1979)

And the overall trend of TIR over the last 30 years has been what exactly? Is there a correlation with mean global temperature variation?

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, you said they are ‘predicting’ based on ‘guesses’. I would say they are projecting based on observations of past behaviour of our climate.
See my previous post.
You’ve yet to demonstrate those similarities.

I hope you'll forgive me for bowing out of this, but I get the feeling that one of your interests is to try to catch me out rather than to have an interesting discussion, and its exhausting.

Thanks for contributing and I wish you well.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

weather ≠ climate

Argumentative fail.

You can't produce the graphic because there are no even reasonably accurate cloud models.

So climate models do simulate clouds? Because you just said that none do and, as such, the models should be ignored?

No, they don't 'model' them, they try to include very rough, poorly formed approximations, which simply isn't good enough.

Let us suppose I have a spherical lump of plasticine and I place it upon a chair. I then sit upon said lump with my naked derrier. I then raise the squished lump aloft and proudly declare to the world 'this is my model of the Taj Mahal, isn't it brilliant?'

Those who love the spirit of art would agree with me, but those wanting/needing an accurate representation of reality would say it was useless and not deserving of the word 'model' - and they'd be right!

It would indeed, but of course, the authors are not implying that cloud processes are ‘only beginning to be investigated’, because that would be laughable.

I am glad you said that. The authors were talking about water vapour in all it's forms, not just clouds, which are just a subset.

So not only can the worlds climate models, not be modeling clouds, they can't be modeling water vapour with any accuracy either, a much more important and large scale variable.

Laughable, as you said.

Sorry, I meant Scenario ‘B’.
Real-world forcings have followed Scenario ‘B’ quite closely, yes.

Which part of Hansen's spiel predicts the 'quite closely' you refer to it, it seems very vague to me.

Cosmic rays don’t come from the sun (the clue is in the name)

Some do, despite the name.

The increase in cosmic rays arriving at the earth at unprecedented levels is a direct result of the dramatic decline in the Suns activity, something you incorrectly claimed as not occoured.

I could have phrased it better.

, but anyway, there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.

If you say so..........or maybe not.

When solar activity is close to its minimum cosmic rays will increase cloud cover and lightning, which will almost completely cancel out the warming effect of added greenhouse gases at that point in time.

Reis et al. Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux. International Journal of Global Warming, 2009; 1 (1/2/3): 57 DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2009.027081

And the overall trend of TIR over the last 30 years has been what exactly? Is there a correlation with mean global temperature variation?

You are again trying to deflect attention from the fact that your assertion that the Sun's bahavour has not varied over the last several decades is totally at odds with reality.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Argumentative fail.

You can't produce the graphic because there are no even reasonably accurate cloud models.

But I never claimed that it was possible to predict cloud formations on a given day? I doubt such a thing is possible. I also question whether such a thing is necessary, given that what we’re interested in is changes in climate rather than the weather on a particular day. Predicting the weather is not a prerequisite for climate projections.

cnocbui wrote: »

No, they don't 'model' them, they try to include very rough, poorly formed approximations, which simply isn't good enough.

What would be good enough, in your opinion?

cnocbui wrote: »

I am glad you said that. The authors were talking about water vapour in all it's forms, not just clouds, which are just a subset.

Well, actually, the article concerns the influence of the latent heat of evaporation and sublimation on circulation currents in the atmosphere (although I haven’t read it in detail), illustrated by (lo-and-behold) simulations.

cnocbui wrote: »

Which part of Hansen's spiel predicts the 'quite closely' you refer to it, it seems very vague to me.

In the full paper.

cnocbui wrote: »

If you say so..........or maybe not.

When solar activity is close to its minimum cosmic rays will increase cloud cover and lightning, which will almost completely cancel out the warming effect of added greenhouse gases at that point in time.

Reis et al. Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux. International Journal of Global Warming, 2009; 1 (1/2/3): 57 DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2009.027081

I draw your attention to the first line of the conclusion:

Evidence of global warming in the past few decades is accumulating, and it is virtually confirmed that it is caused by climate forcing of anthropogenic origin.

The paper claims that cosmic rays modulate the Earth’s climate, which does not contradict my assertion that “there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.”

cnocbui wrote: »

You are again trying to deflect attention from the fact that your assertion that the Sun's bahavour has not varied over the last several decades is totally at odds with reality.

I phrased that poorly – what I should have said was that there has been no observable upward or downward trend in solar output since 1978. Mean global temperature has increased on average, while solar output has remained, on average, relatively constant (although 30 years is a relatively short time period over which to be basing conclusions either way).

bonkey

djpbarry wrote: »

Predicting the weather is not a prerequisite for climate projections.

To give an analagy*....I can predict the long-term distribution of what number comes up on a (fair) roulette wheel, without having any capability of predicting what the next roll will be.

*Yes...you can find several ways in which the analagy breaks down. All analagies break down....thats partly why they're presented as analagies and not as functionally-identical models.

djpbarry

bonkey wrote: »

To give an analagy*....I can predict the long-term distribution of what number comes up on a (fair) roulette wheel, without having any capability of predicting what the next roll will be.

I was going to use the analogy of predicting the winning lottery numbers versus projecting the distribution of the winning numbers, if the need arose - way to steal my thunder (no pun intended).