Herbert Douglass On "Global Warming"

[John317]

On the earth distress of nations, with perplexity . . . men' hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth . . . Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near” (Luke 21:25-28, NKJV).

Life is interesting! The longer one lives, the more it's the same! In the 1970s I was writing editorials for the church paper, then known as The Review and Herald. How well I remember the headlines on radio, TV, scientific journals, etc: “We are facing another ICE AGE!” And I kept writing that such an ending to Planet Earth was not in our future!!

Science Digest’s February 1973 article “Brace yourself for another Ice Age” primarily focused on ice ages and global cooling, with the warning that “the end of the present interglacial period is due ‘soon.’” abiusmaximus.wordpress.com/science-nature/science-history/

Time June 24, 1974, worried that “climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

But fast forward 25-30 years! Now the hype for the past ten years has been on global warming! One would think that the November 2009 Copenhagen climate-change fiasco plus all those “secret” emails made public would be enough for a few mea culpas. The typical Gore disdain gets old beyond embarrassment, except it pays off. Most scientific research and breakthroughs, for which we are all grateful, are rewarded with resounding gratefulness. But such is not what we get as we watch the amazing determination of many climatologists—even in the face of being embarrassed by their confreres.

For instance: Himalaya’s disappearing glaciers?! How long and how loud did we hear about the awful consequences as extrapolated for ocean seashores afar? Finally, the UN climate change “expert,” Rajenda Pachaun, facing the facts and a few “terrible deniers,” announced on January 21 that he was ambushed (my interpretation) by his colleagues when he submitted the UN’s IPCC report in 2007—for which they won the Nobel Prize. (So much for Nobel Prizes!)

Pachaun’s (and a long list of other climatologists and grocery-store mags) science was based, not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999! But now we know that the 1999 interview had been misconstrued. The glaciologist quoted in 1999 said that he was not even quoted correctly! Further, we now know that many other factual errors were made in that 2007 IPCC report, but alas!

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/.../ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistak...

Instance #2: The missing thermometers in weather research?! We surely have been bombarded with “scientific” information regarding the earth getting warmer. (The point here is not whether the earth is getting warmer or not—it may or not be depending on how broad the time periods are that are being discussed.) The issue is: how reliable is the key temperature database?

Now we know that certain U.S. researchers allege that their own government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring (why, is the question) readings from thousands of weather stations around the world, especially those in colder altitudes and northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

For instance, only one station on Ellesmere Island, Canada, was used by NOAA as a temp gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle! In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed info into NOAA (U. S. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration) but today NOAA collects only 35 stations across Canada.

wattsupwiththat.com/.../the-great-dying-of-thermometers-helping-gis

For instance: All this less than a few months after the “climate-gate scandal”! Imagine, thousands of emails, private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain showing that leading, influential climatologists deliberately manipulated warming data, rigging so-called peer-reviews, and on top of all this, keeping their methods secret from the so-called “deniers.”

Obviously, we are looking at a picture on which many world governments are trying to legislate enormous spending/regulatory programs. No need to cite gigantic spending programs such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt now bankrupt with taxpayer implications! www.nytimes.com/.../06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark.. And much of Germany's debt burdens is locked up in their leadership for being the Green Nation!

www.globalwarming.org/.../written-testimony-of-christopher-horner-..

What is going on here? /School rooms from the earliest grades to the most prominent universities are drinking Kool-Aid. Legislators are trying to ram goofy bills through based on lousy, yea, dishonest science. And still calling it, “settled science.”

See Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 2012, “No Need to Panic,” online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842...,,

The question always is, it seems to me, what is the agenda, the presuppositions, which are driving the research in order to reach “their goals?” Follow the money, if we can. The real money and who personally benefits.

We are only reporting what more thoughtful scientists are saying about those who are not careful with the Big Picture. We are all indebted to fearless men and women who risk ridicule in keeping the light of truth shining brightly. But these same lessons must be pursued and really learned in all areas of thought—especially in the theological/religious world!

If ever we must think straight, it surely is in the end-times of this world's history.

R&H, Aug. 5, 1902: "Those who place themselves under God's control, to be led and guided by Him, will CATCH THE STEADY TREND OF EVENTS ordained by Him to take place.”

[Bravus]

Sigh.

[Overaged]

Sigh.

Alright Bravus. Why are you sighing? Fill us in please!!

[Bravus]

So many, many lies and completely, repeatedly debunked things in that post.

At what point does repeating and repeating things that are known to be false become just plain lying?

[Bravus]

Let's start with just one:

http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2008/02/global-cooling-the-underlying-problem/

And know that basically *every* claim I'm that post has similar or less veracity.

Are we accountable for the truth of what we disseminate?

[Overaged]

Oh, OK, I see what you are getting at.

I am not so sure I would use language as strong as "lies" to classify the type of info we see in the OP here. There may be very good reasons that people see it a different way than you.

Without getting too scientific for the moment, I live about an hour and a half from a huge glacier - and I have personally seen how it is shrinking in the last few years. Waters in Canada's Arctic regions that used to be frozen all year, are being anticipated by shipping merchants around the world as being opened up soon because the ice-cap is melting.

I find it hard to explain such things that I am seeing with my own eyes, as lies.

What say ye?

[Bravus]

Yep. I'd add the caveat that local weather is not global climate: some areas will get colder as the glode on average gets hotter. But there is a vast amount of evidence that the globe is warming.

I used to be careful about not calling them lies - people could have been mistaken or misinformed.

But that's why I asked the 'are we accountable?' question: if people *keep* on disseminating information, without checking into its truth, when are they actually misleading others?

And while *some* of this is a matter of opinion, much of it is not. Much of it is a matter of fact. The globe *is* warming. Even the recent re-analysis of the data by a skeptic shows this.

The claim that scientists in general were predicting an ice age in the 70s is simply not true. I have presented the evidence here.

Do you think we'll never, ever see that claim made here again?

I'm not holding my breath.

[Overaged]

Well; what I can say right now without looking up specific information is that I remember years ago being taught in school that scientists were predicting another ice-age, and when I was a bit older; I remember seeing related articles in local newspapers.

Please, allow me to clarify Bravus. Are you saying that the OP is saying that Global warming/climate change is true, or not true? I am not sure I am reading it or you correctly.

Right now; I would say that on this issue I am at a fork in the road; asking the question: "Which is worse; climate change, or climate change policy?"

[doug yowell]

Well; what I can say right now without looking up specific information is that I remember years ago being taught in school that scientists were predicting another ice-age, and when I was a bit older; I remember seeing related articles in local newspapers.

Please, allow me to clarify Bravus. Are you saying that the OP is saying that Global warming/climate change is true, or not true? I am not sure I am reading it or you correctly.

Right now; I would say that on this issue I am at a fork in the road; asking the question: "Which is worse; climate change, or climate change policy?"

Good point,OA, the article doesn't argue one way or the other on global warming but rather uses the failures of past scientific doomsday prognostications to question today's end of life as we know it, Inconvenient Truth predictions.God tells us how this world is going to end, and it's not because of too many green violations.The hysteria caused by this latest scientific absolute is disproportionately damaging to the western psyche. Caution and reform is one thing, needless waste is another.

[phkrause]

R&H, Aug. 5, 1902: "Those who place themselves under God's control, to be led and guided by Him, will CATCH THE STEADY TREND OF EVENTS ordained by Him to take place.”

With this statement, above, I agree 100% That we should be led by the HS. Each side of the issue has an agenda and unfortunately its being driven by politics. As far as the science end of this I will agree with Bravus, not that I agree with him that people are Lying. I do agree that they might be misinformed or even being persuaved(sp) by one thing or the other. But to even suggest that Mr Douglas is lying, is a no no, the man is more honest than most of us put together. I think, at least for me, following the Bible and not going over the top one way or the other on this issue makes the best sense. OA and Bravus make good observations. Bravus being our resident scientist, is always someone that gives us some good insights. OA being one of the most non-political people on this forum is also someone that has good advice to for us to look at. To me neither has an agenda.

[Overaged]

Yes, and I do respect Bravus' scientific knowledge. I have learned many interesting things from him.

Although I won't say this specifically about Bravus in this case; I do think it is possible for science to be misled by agendas, on either side of issues like this.

From my point of view, science does have a lot to contribute in terms of how to take care of our planet, and reduce/minimize the damage we do to it. Every little step in this direction is good, until big business or political agendas grab hold of it, and then we see all the distortions of the facts.

I have definitely wondered, as a kid, why we were taught about the coming ice-age thing, and now, as I look around me, without doing scientific tests or observations, I do see various signs and symptoms of global warming. The Columbia Icefield (which I live close to) is disappearing at a rapid rate, and so is the ice-cap in the arctic. Polar bears there are running out of room to roam. What could be the cause of this? Is the polar ice-cap considered 'regional?" I am not so sure. it seems to me that what happens there is or will be felt around the world. If it's not global warming, what is it?

Perhaps Bravus can clarify if there are different definitions of global warming, maybe we are running under different terminnology and theories from one another? I am not sure.

[Tom Wetmore]

Two observations of vulnerability Adventists may have to the circulation of this info and in particular from this source.

Herb Douglass has credibility on certain Adventist topics of interest to a significant segment of Adventists. That credibility leaves a perception that what he says in areas outside of his expertise should be believed and excepted as likewise credible. That is an unfortunate logical fallacy. A person can be very right about things with which they are familiar and very wrong about things of which they have limited knowledge.

Adventists are inherently predisposed to accepting a minority view in the face of great opposition. It's in our religious DNA. Sticking to ones point of view no matter the criticism and numerous counter-arguments is deemed to be a virtue. Adventists expect opposition and persecution, more so as time approaches the end. Taking a position in the face of great opposition to it is expected and done as an exercise and test of faith. Lines between sacred and secular tend to get blurred. And the lines between political and religious get blurred. That makes Adventists vulnerable to falling for conspiracy theories, unscientific voices against scientific evidence, scams, urban legends, political posturing, endless eschatological interpretations to any and all current events, etc.

Those we trust are not necessarily and always right. Being different or opposed or "persecuted" doesn't make one right either.

[Overaged]

Bravus; which parts of this would you consider matters of personal opinions?

[Overaged]

Was Douglas actually trying to make a "scientific statement" or was he trying to make some other kind of statement?

[phkrause]

Excellent points OA

[phkrause]

Was Douglas actually trying to make a "scientific statement" or was he trying to make some other kind of statement?

I think he was trying to make religious statement, based on the Bible and his findings there.

[Bravus]

I agree that he was making a religious statement. He just chose a very unfortunate illustration. Global warming will not 'end the world'. It will kill millions, and make it a much less hospitable place to live, but no-one is claiming it will end all life, or even all human life.

The thing is, his use of this illustration led him to participate in a lot of misinformation, just as collateral damage. If you want to talk about it, you ought to do the minimum research required to avoid misleading people.

His message also plays into the 'no need to do anything, this world will be destroyed by God soon anyway' mindset. But we don't *know* when the Second Coming will be. Should we doom people to flood and drought and starvation unrtil then?

Or should we, as we were charged to do in Eden, be good stewards?

[Overaged]

The thing is, his use of this illustration led him to participate in a lot of misinformation, just as collateral damage. If you want to talk about it, you ought to do the minimum research required to avoid misleading people.

[bonnie]

His message also plays into the 'no need to do anything, this world will be destroyed by God soon anyway' mindset. But we don't *know* when the Second Coming will be. Should we doom people to flood and drought and starvation unrtil then?

Or should we, as we were charged to do in Eden, be good stewards?

No one knows when the second coming will be.Some of us believe that while we should not pollute the ground water and keep our enviornment as safe as reasonably possibly,we don't believe we can manage the weather.Taking all the cars off the face of the earth will not stop Matthew 24:5-8

Wars and rumors of war,See that you are not troubled,for all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.

For there will be famines,pestilences and earthquakes in various places.All these are the beginning of sorrows.

I don't think any scientist on earth,no matter how intelligent they think they are will be able to stop this. Should we doom people to flood and drought and starvation until then

Man in his puny wisdom seems to think they can remove cars and suddenly the above will not be true any longer.

[Bravus]

I would be interested to see what specifically you see as misinformation in what Douglas wrote...

Can you point to something specific that Douglas said which shows clearly that he intended to say we should not be good stewards of the earth, as we are admonished to in Eden?

Ack, where to I start? There's a heap of info, on both of your questions. I'll paste his whole article here, then work through it a bit, but I don't have infinite time... it would be quicker to post what *was* true: the one or two lines about placing our trust in God whatever happens.

Here goes... I've snipped out the bits I don't want to comment on, just to conserve space. The full article is available on the previous page.

Quote:

Life is interesting! The longer one lives, the more it's the same! In the 1970s I was writing editorials for the church paper, then known as The Review and Herald. How well I remember the headlines on radio, TV, scientific journals, etc: “We are facing another ICE AGE!” {lots more on this point}

I've already posted the rebuttal to this: there was no consensus about climate scientists on an ice age in the 70s, and indeed to the extent that there was a consensus it was around warming rather than cooling. The whole claim that 'scientists were wrong before!' is simply misleading.

Quote:

But fast forward 25-30 years! Now the hype for the past ten years has been on global warming! One would think that the November 2009 Copenhagen climate-change fiasco plus all those “secret” emails made public would be enough for a few mea culpas. The typical Gore disdain gets old beyond embarrassment, except it pays off. Most scientific research and breakthroughs, for which we are all grateful, are rewarded with resounding gratefulness. But such is not what we get as we watch the amazing determination of many climatologists—even in the face of being embarrassed by their confreres.

The 'Copenhagen fiasco' was a political failure fueled by just such campaigns of misinformation as this. America is facing a 'fiasco' on dealing with obesity, but that doesn't make the science of food and obesity wrong, it just means there isn't the will to do something. Same with Copenhagen.

The leaked emails were taken out of context and misunderstood, and did not reveal actual wrong-doing. While 'Climategate' was loudly proclaimed, the reports of the independent investigations - which cleared the climate scientists of all wrong-doing - came out months later in almost complete silence. If someone uses 'Climategate' as an argument, you know they haven't done their research.

Even just checking on Wikipedia reveals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations."

Quote:

{couple of paras on a single error in the IPCC report}

Yes, there was one error that a lot was made of - and thousands and thousands of pages of utterly compelling evidence. When someone focuses on the one mistake - later corrected - rather than the vast majority of the evidence, they are attempting to mislead. What do the IPCC reports *say*? And are their conclusions all based on the Himalayan glacier data? If it were, this mistake would be significant. But it's not, it's based on a large number of independt data sources, all of which point to warming.

Quote:

Instance #2: The missing thermometers in weather research?! We surely have been bombarded with “scientific” information regarding the earth getting warmer. (The point here is not whether the earth is getting warmer or not—it may or not be depending on how broad the time periods are that are being discussed.) The issue is: how reliable is the key temperature database?

Now we know that certain U.S. researchers allege that their own government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring (why, is the question) readings from thousands of weather stations around the world, especially those in colder altitudes and northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

For instance, only one station on Ellesmere Island, Canada, was used by NOAA as a temp gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle! In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed info into NOAA (U. S. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration) but today NOAA collects only 35 stations across Canada.

'Certain researchers allege...' - so what is the truth? What does the evidence actually say? Multiple different data sets say warming is occurring. He's misleading his readers, based on allegations from unnamed people, when the evidence is very clear. Here is a recent report from a group that started out as skeptics and wanted to investigate all these issues:

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

Quote:

wattsupwiththat.com/.../the-great-dying-of-thermometers-helping-gis

A well known climate denial site as a reference. Uhuh.

Quote:

For instance: All this less than a few months after the “climate-gate scandal”! Imagine, thousands of emails, private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain showing that leading, influential climatologists deliberately manipulated warming data, rigging so-called peer-reviews, and on top of all this, keeping their methods secret from the so-called “deniers.”

Straight up lies, see the Wikipedia article linked above.

Quote:

Obviously, we are looking at a picture on which many world governments are trying to legislate enormous spending/regulatory programs. No need to cite gigantic spending programs such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt now bankrupt with taxpayer implications! www.nytimes.com/.../06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark.. And much of Germany's debt burdens is locked up in their leadership for being the Green Nation!

Germany's debt burden is minimal: it just cut taxes because it is running large surpluses. Being a 'green nation', far from destroying it, might be said to be helping it be the one bouyant economy among a Europe full of nations 'in the red'. Of course, there are other factors, but the claim that 'being green' destroys economies seems not to be working out so well.

Overaged, the part that is a matter of opinion is what we do about climate change. It's happening - there's no doubt about that, and claims that it's not are lies - but as to what we do, that's a political and social problem, and a knotty one. Have there been awful programs instituted in an attempt to address climate change? Yep. Probably not as awful as you've been told, but pretty awful. There are good ways to address the issue - investment in research and development for a clean energy future - and bad ways - slashing our standard of living or taxing everything to death. I'm all for the good ones... but again, don't take the bad ones and use them to claim climate change isn't happening at all.

Quote:

www.globalwarming.org/.../written-testimony-of-christopher-horner-..

What is going on here? /School rooms from the earliest grades to the most prominent universities are drinking Kool-Aid. Legislators are trying to ram goofy bills through based on lousy, yea, dishonest science. And still calling it, “settled science.”

Nope, more lies.

Quote:

See Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 2012, “No Need to Panic,” online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842...,,

The question always is, it seems to me, what is the agenda, the presuppositions, which are driving the research in order to reach “their goals?” Follow the money, if we can. The real money and who personally benefits.

We are only reporting what more thoughtful scientists are saying about those who are not careful with the Big Picture. We are all indebted to fearless men and women who risk ridicule in keeping the light of truth shining brightly.

Lies claimed to be truth. I'm sorry, sir, your theological credibility just exploided.

Quote:

But these same lessons must be pursued and really learned in all areas of thought—especially in the theological/religious world!

If ever we must think straight, it surely is in the end-times of this world's history.

Ah, finally something we can agree on.

[Bravus]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

[bonnie]

No one denies the climate changes.What is in dispute is if man can cause it.

Explain what happened here. To many cars,to much oil consumption?

Wikipedia

The economic depression of the 1930s was longer and harder than any other in American history because it was followed by one of the longest and hardest droughts on record. There are cycles of drought, but this was one of the worst ever recorded. The decade started with dry years in 1930 and 1931 especially in the East. Then, 1934 recorded extremely dry conditions over almost 80 percent of the United States. Extreme drought conditions returned in 1936, 1939 and 1940. Walter Schmitt calls this the "double whammy" of drought and depression.

The drought made the Depression worse, especially in the Great Plains. The "Great" Depression was a national and international disaster, but the Plains were hardest hit. In 1933, the average person living in North Dakota earned only $145 a year. That compared with a national average of $375, over twice as much.

With no rain, farmers couldn't grow any crops. No crops meant that the wind blew bare soil high in the air creating dust storms. School was canceled because of dust storms, not snowstorms. Some farmers, in trouble because of the bad economy, were forced to give up and move out of the plains looking for work.

[Bravus]

This is a very common logical fallacy:

'Climate change will make droughts worse, therefore there were no droughts before climate change'.

Clearly nonsense - there have always been droughts.

But it's a rebuttal of a claim no-one was making.

There has always been weather and climate: what you *should* take from the Great Depression history is how bad it will be if climate change causes more frequent and more severe droughts.

[bonnie]

Global warming or global cooling and what caused it

The unusual climatic aberrations of 1816 had the greatest effect on the northeastern United States, Atlantic Canada, and parts of western Europe. Typically, the late spring and summer of the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada are relatively stable: temperatures (average of both day and night) average about 68 °F (20 °C) and 77 °F (25 °C) and rarely fall below 41 °F (5 °C). Summer snow is an extreme rarity.

In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent "dry fog" was observed in the northeastern US. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the "fog". It has been characterized as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.[6]

In May 1816,[1] frost killed off most of the crops that had been planted, and on 4 June 1816, frosts were reported in Connecticut, and by the following day, most of New England was gripped by the cold front. On 6 June 1816, snow fell in Albany, New York, and Dennysville, Maine.[7] Nearly 12 inches (30 cm) of snow was observed in Quebec City in early June, with consequent additional loss of crops—most summer-growing plants have cell walls which rupture even in a mild frost. The result was regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic[clarification needed], and increased mortality.

In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania. Rapid, dramatic temperature swings were common, with temperatures sometimes reverting from normal or above-normal summer temperatures as high as 95 °F (35 °C) to near-freezing within hours. Even though farmers south of New England did succeed in bringing some crops to maturity, maize and other grain prices rose dramatically.

[Bravus]

And if you read the article I linked at the top of this page you will see that the connection between greenhouse gases and warming was used *in the late 50s* to predict warming *before it was observed*.

The physics of *how* human activities are causing the warming is very well established.