Herbert Douglass On "Global Warming"

[John317]

...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.

Would you say, then, that all scientists who are aware of the recent re-analysis agree that the globe is warming?

[Overaged]

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.”

Bravus. I am going to take one thing at a time, from the OP, and try to clarify with you on each one. I quoted the above, as it is the essence of the first idea, how that it used to be taught in some circles that an Ice-Age is coming. You seemed to be saying that this is not true? Am I reading you correctly? If so; how do you explain the brief references given in this quote, as well as what I was saying about being taught this in elementary school? (a "few" years ago, lol)

[Bravus]

Happy to engage once I'm back on a real computer rather than typing with my thumb.

[Overaged]

Happy to engage once I'm back on a real computer rather than typing with my thumb.

lol, no problem! I can wait. You would sure know it if I was on my Iphone and trying to post here...lol

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

...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.

Would you say, then, that all scientists who are aware of the recent re-analysis agree that the globe is warming?

That's not the standard. You will never get unanimity. Some 'scientists' argued for decades after all the evidence was in that smoking didn't cause lung cancer. The fact that some people do not accept the preponderance of evidence does not mean the evidence is wrong, it means those people are wrong.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: 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.”

Bravus. I am going to take one thing at a time, from the OP, and try to clarify with you on each one. I quoted the above, as it is the essence of the first idea, how that it used to be taught in some circles that an Ice-Age is coming. You seemed to be saying that this is not true? Am I reading you correctly? If so; how do you explain the brief references given in this quote, as well as what I was saying about being taught this in elementary school? (a "few" years ago, lol)

It's important to clearly understand the logic of what is being argued here. The logic is:

Premise 1: Scientists claimed we were going into an ice age.

Premise 2: We did not go into an ice age.

Conclusion: The predictions of scientists are not to be trusted.

The problem is with Premise 1. Now, as I just outlined above, you never get complete unanimity on the part of scientists. But, if this argument was valid, it would be important to establish that *many* or *most* scientists were predicting an ice age.

My claim is not that no-one - or no scientists - ever predicted an ice age. That would be a silly claim. Clearly some in the media - the linked stories - made those predictions. Some of your teachers may have been influenced by those media stories, and told you the same thing. I'd be astonished if it was part of the formal syllabus, but it could have been said informally in class.

But the blog post I linked, and will link again here, shows a peer reviewed research article that reviewed the scientific literature of the time. It is very clearly not true that *many* or *most* scientists were predicting an ice age. Quite the contrary, more scientists were already warning of warming.

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

This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. The argument sequence outlined above falls flat at its first Premise, because that premise is not factual.

[Bravus]

More: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[Bravus]

Next question?

[Bravus]

Excellent points, Bonnie.

Bravus, do you agree with any of those points that Bonnie makes?

On the climate science, Bonnie confused 'climate' with 'climate change' as I said before. She points to extreme weather events in the past to claim that 'climate change' has always existed. What she means is that 'climate' has always existed, which no-one is contesting.

She points to personal letters to claim that extreme weather was worse in the past than it is now. That's known as 'anecdotal evidence'. It records weather at one place and time, not global climate. It is essentially useless evidence for making claims about global climate.

Her claim that human activity is irrelevant to climate change is simply wrong. The notion that God is in control, and that climate change is prophesied, is not actually relevant to this issue, at least if it is interpreted to mean that we are not accountable to God for our stewardship of this earth.

As Jesus said in a different context,

"Woe unto the world because of offenses! For it must happen that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." (Matthew 18:7)

[Bravus]

Obviously we have global warming - we are at X-distance from the last Ice age --- and guess what - this is not an ice age. We absolutely have trended "warmer" from the last ice age. Who can doubt it?

We are at least 2800 years from the last ice age, correct? Canaan wasn't an icy steppe when the Israelites walked across the desert. And yet the warming trend is only in the past 100 years or so, and more so in the past 4 decades.

In other words, *not*, as your scenario would suggest, a constant rate of warming since the last ice age, but a dramatic increase in rate since the Industrial Revolution.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Know what else?"Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say "

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...59-CC5C23C24651

Oh, I know Lorne Gunter's work from my time in Canada. He's no climate scientist, as this article clearly shows.

We have discussed this issue before, and the paper by Solanki in particular was misinterpreted to say exactly the opposite of what Solanki found. More links below.

Why do we see this pattern of lies and deceit over and over and over again? Taking someone's name and using it to say exactly the opposite of what that person says. That's beyond just carelessness, it's dishonesty.

Check the .sig, again again again, as much as necessary.

[Bravus]

Here is a direct quote from Sami Solanki:

Quote:

However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

[Bravus]

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf

OK, I could keep bringing more, and more, and more evidence of wrong claims, but what is the point?

Those who are convinced in their own minds do not look at or critically challenge the evidence.

I'd be *happy* to have a discussion based around the evidence, and the very real uncertainties and issues.

But just the same old repeated lies, that people who spread them *ought* to know are lies...

What's the point?

[Overaged]

Next question?

[Overaged]

She points to personal letters to claim that extreme weather was worse in the past than it is now. That's known as 'anecdotal evidence'. It records weather at one place and time, not global climate. It is essentially useless evidence for making claims about global climate.

Global climate is the sum of local places and times. it is quite relevant??

[Bravus]

Read carefully, because I write carefully.

If you read the whole thread, you will never find me saying that Pr Douglass lied.

Have not said it.

Have said that he passed on lies without adequate checking.

That is truth.

[Overaged]

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf

OK, I could keep bringing more, and more, and more evidence of wrong claims, but what is the point?

Those who are convinced in their own minds do not look at or critically challenge the evidence.

I'd be *happy* to have a discussion based around the evidence, and the very real uncertainties and issues.

But just the same old repeated lies, that people who spread them *ought* to know are lies...

What's the point?

Alrighty then. To be fair here; I am also going to use the word lies. I think you are lying about Douglas. (yes, we are still friends...lol)

[Bravus]

What have I said about Douglass that I have not supported with evidence?

If you can demonstrate something I have said about him that is untrue, I will be delighted to withdraw it and apologise.

[Overaged]

Read carefully, because I write carefully.

If you read the whole thread, you will never find me saying that Pr Douglass lied.

Have not said it.

Have said that he passed on lies without adequate checking.

That is truth.

yes; i think we had all better wink at that one my friend!!

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

She points to personal letters to claim that extreme weather was worse in the past than it is now. That's known as 'anecdotal evidence'. It records weather at one place and time, not global climate. It is essentially useless evidence for making claims about global climate.

Global climate is the sum of local places and times. it is quite relevant??

It would make no sense for me to say 'it is hot here today, therefore the globe is warming', any more than it would make sense to for you to say the opposite.

If bonnie's progenitors had lived equally distributed all over the world, perhaps her sampling of their letters over a long period might make a useful sample for making comments about global climate.

I'm gonna guess they didn't...

[Overaged]

She points to personal letters to claim that extreme weather was worse in the past than it is now. That's known as 'anecdotal evidence'. It records weather at one place and time, not global climate. It is essentially useless evidence for making claims about global climate.

/quote]Global climate is the sum of local places and times. it is quite relevant??

/quote]

It would make no sense for me to say 'it is hot here today, therefore the globe is warming', any more than it would make sense to for you to say the opposite.

If bonnie's progenitors had lived equally distributed all over the world, perhaps her sampling of their letters over a long period might make a useful sample for making comments about global climate.

I'm gonna guess they didn't...

ha ha; I gotta give you credit - you are a whiz with the come-backs. Specially when it comes to science.

If I misunderstood you to say that Douglas himself was lying; I apologize; and I withdraw the pertinent remarks. It really seems like you did say or intimate that; but I am happy to accept your statements to the contrary. Knowing your intents behind the comments more specifically, is a big help.

Im kinda out of time for this topic; as there is something else I have to work on for a day or three; but maybe I could come back to the local versus global climate question? I would be interested to explore it further; in light of the OP.

[Neil D]

May I point out something to this esteemed religious board....?

One of the seven last plagues is that the sun increases it's intensity and men become scorched...See Revelation 16:8ff....

Now, without trying to decipher the when this is going to happen, does anyone here doubt that this verse points to 'a global warming'?

[Bravus]

Given that Solanki's work had been misrepresented so egregiously, I thought I'd check out Lorne Gunter's other scientists to see whether *their* work had been reported honestly.

Here's the list and its paragraph:

Quote:

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solanki we've already looked at.

Turns out it's (K)Habibullo Abdusamatov, but that's a pretty easy typo with an unfamiliar name.

Seems his *claims* have been reported accurately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov

Balianus and Soon have been funded by the oil industry to the tune of more than a million dollars, and their work challenged by many prominent scientists. Again, though, it seems as though their work has been accurately represented.

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

'a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists' - not so much.

The best current evidence we have generally agrees with Solanki's work: changes to the sun can account for no more than 30% of the observed warming.

[Bravus]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ient-condition/

From the latter link:

Quote:

Perhaps the most publicized recent example was the publication of a study by astronomer Willie Soon of the Harvard University-affiliated Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors, claiming to demonstrate that 20th century global warmth was not unusual in comparison with conditions during Medieval times. Indeed, this study serves as a prime example of one of the “myths” that we have debunked elsewhere on this site. The study was summarily discredited in articles by teams of climate scientists (including several of the scientists here at RealClimate), in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal Eos and in Science. However, it took some time the rebuttals to work their way through the slow process of the scientific peer review. In the meantime the study was quickly seized upon by those seeking to sow doubt in the validity behind the scientific consensus concerning the evidence for human-induced climate change (see news articles in the New York Times, and Wall Street Journal). The publication of the study had wider reverberations throughout the academic and scientific institutions connected with it. The association of the study with the “Harvard” name caused some notable unease among members of the Harvard University community (see here and here) and the reputation of the journal publishing the study was seriously tarnished in the process. The editor at Climate Research that handled the Soon et al paper, Dr. Chris de Frietas, has a controversial record of past editorial practices (see this ‘sidebar’ to an article in Scientific American by science journalist David Appell). In an unprecedented (to our knowledge) act of protest, chief editor Hans von Storch and 3 additional editors subsequently resigned from Climate Research in response to the fundamental documented failures of the editorial process at the journal. A detailed account of these events are provided by Chris Mooney in the Skeptical Inquirer and The American Prospect, by David Appell in Scientific American, and in a news brief in Nature. The journal’s publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that “[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper”.

[olger]

The New York Times headline on May 21, 1975 “Scientists Ponder Why The World’s Climate Is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

Go back to March 27, 1933 and the Times had another bundle of pre-packaged perception to seduce the public with. “America’s Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise.”

And less than 10-years before that on September 18, 1924, the headline read; “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”

[olger]

In June, 1974, Time Magazine unleashed a mountain of evidence to support what scientists – at the time – suspected was the onset of a coming ice age. Characterizing it’s evidence as “telltale signs everywhere“, the article went back three decades to summarize statistics and events which pointed towards global cooling.

Newsweek Magazine conducted it’s own investigation about a year later, concluding that evidence supporting a coming ice age had “begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists (were) hard-pressed to keep up with it all.”

When average temperatures over a 100 year period were found to have risen about ahalf-degree Celsius, the global cooling drum beat faded in lieu of a new worry – Global Warming. Environmentalist, looking for a way to connect man-made pollution to a more substantial argument, blamed CO2 emissions as the culprit for changes in the earth’s climate. The drum beat of Global Warming grew louder and louder until the turn of the century – when climate data began defying weather model predictions and climate trend forecasts.

As cold climate data rolled in and continued to roll in, Global Warming proponents went into damage control mode. The term “Global Warming” was dropped in lieu of the more ‘scientifically correct’ term “Climate Change”. Of course, a bridge was needed to explain this change of tactic and one was provided by suggesting both were occurring at once.

Now, the argument for a coming ice age is gaining ground – and this time, scientists have real, tangible, physical evidence to support it. What’s more, scientists do not have to rely on computer models to predict it. They have real world history, sound science and endless statistics to back it up.

But wait. Didn’t we see irrefutable proof that the Arctic ice caps were melting? Indeed we did – and although scientist now see the Arctic ice caps recovering, we have recently learned something else. The south pole accumulated MORE ice at almost the same rate the north pole lost ice. Global Warming apparently likes some parts of the world more than others.