Climate Justice Clips: More of Tutu's Message to Copenhagen, 'Join the Winning Side'

tried to delete a comment didn't work...

Oh, for heaven's sake, John. He said the same thing to you that you said to all the rest of us. Word for word. If he was attacking you, then you were attacking all of us.

The fact is, many of us who are trying to save the planet believe that doing so in the name of Christ is, among other things, an extremely effective way of making disciples.

Been out of commission for a few days, sorry for the delay.

"Instead of assuming climate scientists are stupid and trying to pull the wool over our eyes by changing the name from global warming to climate change, why don't you just ask why they are using a different term? There might be a reason for it."

Because the real world facts end up not supporting their theory, so they change it in whatever direction they need to.

"Gravy train? Where's this gravy train? Do you have tax statements of climate scientists to show that they are all millionaires?"

They are getting lots and lots of grant money for their work. What happens if it's admitted that the theory isn't true? Their work ceases to have the same perceived importance.

Been out of commission for a few days, sorry for the delay.

"Instead of assuming climate scientists are stupid and trying to pull the wool over our eyes by changing the name from global warming to climate change, why don't you just ask why they are using a different term? There might be a reason for it."

Because the real world facts end up not supporting their theory, so they change it in whatever direction they need to.

"Gravy train? Where's this gravy train? Do you have tax statements of climate scientists to show that they are all millionaires?"

They are getting lots and lots of grant money for their work. What happens if it's admitted that the theory isn't true? Their work ceases to have the same perceived importance.

In other words you can say things to all of us that we can't say to you. Interesting take on the Golden Rule I guess.

I'll refer you to the comment from Anothernonymous above: 12/14/2009 05:59 PM.

thanks i thought so just checking.

for interest the majority of my answer come from this site as well as other research: http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParr...

i don't know if you were talking about mine or 'fundamentalists' post but i didn't get my info from wikipedia...

1: The assertion that because something is small in quantity means that it has little effect seems as an error in logic. Whilst it is true humans levels are low in terms of total carbon, ice cores have shown that for the past half million yrs carbon has remained between levels of 180 and 300ppm. Yet since the early stages of industrial revolution approx 1750 carbon in the atmosphere has risen 39% (280ppm-380ppm). This seems to support that our small levels have in fact had a great impact upon the total. Also the relation between increase in carbon is negated by the climate which is taken out of the atmosphere, this however has been upset by the Industrial Revolution and massive deforestation. We produce around 6 gigatonnes of carbon, yet we do not follow the natural process by taking carbon out.

2. Again yes you are right water vapour is the most predominant greenhouse gas which humans have little effect over. The water vapour is a feedback response and is not climate 'forcing'. When there are large amounts in the air it rains low amounts it is replaced through evaparation, having little effect on overall temperature change. This contrasts with the effect of CO2 which is climate forcing, so if CO2 was suddenly removed from the air, temps would decrease causing rain leading to further temp decrease. It also works the other way the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less it rains leading to warmer temps ice camp melts and more evaporation equalling more greenhouse gas.

3. Yes CO2 has risen and fallen many times b4 the IR but as I argued before the rise has never been so great, fluctuating between 180 and 300ppm.

4. Yes historically temperature has moved first. This demonstrates that historically carbon was not the instigator of warming, it does however contribute greatly to further increases in warming (eg my earlier discussion of feedback loops and water). Climate forcing is believed to be the main contributer to the eventual levels of warming and CO2 is a forcer. During past periods of warming i agree CO2 never caused however full extent of the warming is never explained without discussion of CO2 levels...The historical argument also ommits the crucial point that carbon levels due to human activity have never been so high, so there will be some dissonance between now and the past.

5. It is true ways of measuring climate are imperfect, they are man made. However the work of Hansen in the 80s which predicted a global temp rise with a possible short period of cooling was proven correct. Even earlier climate scientists (Arrhenius 1896) have been proved correct in that the past century would show an increase in temperature due to human CO2, his estimates fell short in that he did not account for the huge level of emmissions we have made, predicting a more gradual rise. The fact is if current predictions are correct we do not have the time to wait and see if they are correct. Scientists will keep improving their modelling.

Facts irritating aye

Does Jesus say anything about caring for the poor? Those of us trying to "save the planet" are doing so in part because we see the people who are most affected by environmental degradation are the poor.

And I see nothing about posting on blogs either.

tried to delete a comment didn't work...

Oh, for heaven's sake, John. He said the same thing to you that you said to all the rest of us. Word for word. If he was attacking you, then you were attacking all of us.

The fact is, many of us who are trying to save the planet believe that doing so in the name of Christ is, among other things, an extremely effective way of making disciples.

I find it very strange to identify junk climate science with God. God wants people to tell the truth. As the latest email scandal proves, climate scientists don't care about the truth.

Sigh...gotta ask. Please tell me how the scientific method works. If you have had science since high school, what courses have you had? What, exactly, is climate change, anyway? Why do climate scientists think it is happening?

Now that we know Tiger Woods is nothing but an adulterer, all of Golf should be banned because clearly all golfers are adulterers.

"Minor misbehavior by three or four out of thousands of climate scientists, uncovered by an illegal and unethical break-in that is a clear violation of God's commandments,"

What, exactly, do you mean by this? I wonder, do you feel the same way about the discoveries of the sins of the Bush administration over the Iraq war justifications?

To label these gentlemen as just 3 or 4 out of thousands of climate scientists is incredible--(as if Obama, Pelosi and Reid are just 3 out of thousands of elected officials). This scandal affects the primary contributors to the IPCC reports! Much of the work of thousands of climate scientists is based on the doctored and misrepresented findings of these 3 or 4 scientists. And there is still a mountain of evidence that shows temperatures were warmer in the MWP and ice cores show higher cyclical CO2 concentrations in previous millennia.

"This scandal affects the primary contributors to the IPCC reports!"

Not true! They are only three or four among thousands of contributors.

And the terms "doctored" and "misrepresented" are only believable because the thieves who stole the data cherry picked it, lifting it out of context, and then took advantage of the fact that most non-scientists have no idea how scientists work.

Has the so called climate gate discredited the whole structure of climate science. So it is all meaningless?

Don't see any follow on ripple of collapse in the rest of the scientific community.

The journal Nature, with its immense and authoritative record surveying the science scene over hundreds of years said this about any 'fraud',:
"This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real - or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
For more see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2...

That the effects of our civilisation on the earth's eco system is insignificant and cannot be quantified, and business as usual is quite OK. There are other issues, not least the progressive decline of our coral reefs

More moral relativism.

So if I do a wrong, someone else's wrong is now justified? What bible are you reading?

I find it very strange to identify junk climate science with God. God wants people to tell the truth. As the latest email scandal proves, climate scientists don't care about the truth.

What are you talking about? Isn't the relativism charged to the account of those who would believe burglars and thieves before believing those who have dedicated themselves to uncovering facts?

The latest email scandal proves no such thing. Minor misbehavior by three or four out of thousands of climate scientists, uncovered by an illegal and unethical break-in that is a clear violation of God's commandments, has no effect on the mountain of evidence that 1. earth's atmosphere is warming; 2. climates around the world are changing; and 3. fossil fuel emissions are the chief cause.

The junk science is on the hands of those who have tried to throw dust into the eyes of the thousands of dedicated climate scientists who have dedicated--and in some cases risked--their own lives to learning what is happening to the earth's climate systems. The perpetrators of that junk science are well paid for their efforts, too. Just take a look at the list of contributors I posted here: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/12/03/climate-justice...