Global Warming Update

 



The last time I did a post on global warming (part 2 here)I got some opposition form a conservative opponent. The right wing has really buffaloed the chruch into associated "global warming" with left wing anti-God atheism. So they really deal with the issue as though it's an affront to the very concept of religious belief. It has nothing to do with that. It's about something that our greed and fear has done too the world. We could take a theological stand on it. God gave Adam stewardship over the earth; not the right to rape the earth but the responsibility to protect it.

Now a new study has come out showing that the effects of global warming are not future effects, they are now. They are worse than we thought. The effect is greater at this stage then our estimates had it at a future stage.That means at the momentum is gaining and the real disastrous effects are just around the corner.

1. Kevin E. Trenberth^* and
2. John T. Fasullo

Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013

DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000165

 Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m⁻² over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m⁻² occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.[1]

The average surface tempature has slowed (which is the major measurement that I find conservatives harping on) but the melting of artic ice and rising of sea levels has increased.[2]


Yet another report has also been released, this one the mandatory periodic report, the NCA, the National Climate Assessment finds that each region is pledged by it's own climate change disaster: heat wave, drought, rising sea levels.

The assessment was prepared by hundreds of the USA's top scientists. It largely agrees with a recent report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that found the planet is warming, mostly because of human activity.
The assessment provides "the loudest and clearest alarm bell to date" for immediate and aggressive climate action, John Holdren, Obama's science adviser, said at a press conference.
"All Americans will find things that matter to them in this report...
"There are a lot of troubling findings here, but one of the most striking regards sea-level rise," said Patrick Sullivan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The report says we could see as much as four feet of sea-level rise this century, with regional variations. That will pose major storm surge and flood threats to major coastal communities like New York, Boston, and Houston." [3]

 This is the third report of the 60 person advisory committee, the most comprehensive report done on global warming in america,  250 authors were engaged in this report.[4]
 http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac







Naomi Oreskes,Science historian, , speaks to the alleged lack of consensus in scientific circles:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].[5]

Oreskes points out that all major scientific bodies in the U.S. whose members whose members expertise bear directly upon the issue have made statements similar to that above. She quotes he National Academy of Sciences report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)].She also sites The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 She analyzes reports as falling into six categories categories:

explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.[6]

Anyone who is anyone in academic science is lined up with the consensus. While right wing sources can find lone wolf voices the major organizations accept the thesis that man's tampering has caused the brunt of the problem.

A new study in the journal Climate Change traces two thirds of the man made end of the problem to just 90 companies, including Chevron and BP.[7]  This is a quantative analysis of the 50 leading investor-owned (plus 31 state owned and 9 nation state producers) of fossil fuel energy. The findings suggest that 63% of cumulative world wide emissions of industrial green house gases to 90 companies. This is bewteen the years 1854 and 2010. This study constitues a new methodology in tracing emmisions. Rather than just deal with nation by nation statistics they undertake to "to analyze emissions in terms of the fossil fuels produced by incorporated entities—such as investor-owned or state-owned companies—rather than states as consumers and emitters.."[8] A great deal of scientific work has gone into this study. I can't produce it all here or even summarize it. The study also reflects the harms of green house gasses in producing climate change.

The frame work set up intentionally to deal with climate change though fossil fuel emmisions seeks to chart the course for nations as emitters. This study shows us that it's just 90 internaltional companies that are responsible for most of the harm. That also reflects my own thesis about corporate feudalism, that multinational corporations have outstripped nation states in power and influence. What this really means is once again the 1% leach off of the 99% of the rest of the world. The rich and powerful and killing humanity and nature for short term profits.

This merely underscores the immediate danger of allowing the republicans to win the senate. The republican party in the U.S. are the servants of this 1% that is leaching off of our lives. If they win the Senate there will be no way to the world from disastrous climate change and worse.Republicans in congress and tea party have tried to cover up climate change by making people confused and afraid to trust the scinece. If they control congress we will never get any action on the problem.




Sources

[1]Kevi E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo, quated by Stff Writer in Earth's Future Wiley Online Library (Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000165)

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
 (accessed,5/10/14)

[2] John Abraham Dana  Nuccitelli, The Guardian, (hosted blog) Tuesday 10 December 2013 09.00 EST. Blog http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/10/global-warming-unpaused-fast-forward
(accessed,5/10/14).

[3]Doyle Rice,USA Today "Report: Climate change is Here and Getting worse." May 6, 2014,
 http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment/8736743/
 (accessed,5/10/14)

[4] "National Climate Asscessment and Development Advisory Committee,"Global Change.gov U.S. Global Change Research Program. their official site. URL: http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
 (accessed, 5/10/14)

[5] Naomi Oreskes,"Essays on Science and Society, Beyond the Ivory Tower," Science, AAAS News.
 Dec 3, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
accessed (5/10/14) The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu

[6] Ibid.

[7] Richard Heede, "Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010"  Climate Change,    January 2014, Volume 122, Issue 1-2, pp 229-241,Open Access 
 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y
accessed 5/11/14 

[8] Ibid, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y/fulltext.html
access 5/11/14. 

Global Warming part 2: Man's Contribution

This graphic is from the Skeptical Science site
I hope they don't mind.

Friday is usually a light day on this blog. Just a quick note to fill in a gap from the previous piece.

Many conservatives admit we are expericing warming of the planet but claim it's a natural cycle or that we can't know if our contribution to green house gases is really enough to be the culprit. I think we just think rationally about we would see it must be. There's a good site called Skeptical Science, that deals with this issue. Warning, it says it's "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."

Climate Myth...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

this bit goes with the graphic above:

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

 So the balance remained for remained in balance, even there were times when climate changed naturally. In time of the Dinasours the earth was warmer than now. In the time of ice age it was much colder than it is now. It seems the Tipping point is that we began interjecting sources that did not balance. Natural source give and take corban dioxide, such as trees.

there's much more on that site so please look at that page

Anti-Global Warming Position of Religious Right Fails stewardship of Gospel

The Union Tribune San Diego published an article by distinguished professor of Marine Chemistry, Jeffery L. Bada in which he descriges the letters he got in response to his statements about Gobal warming:

One challenged me to a debate about whether global warming and rising carbon dioxide was real science, or a hoax, and stated that I was “woefully ignorant of climate science and even the basics of how science works.” In response, I suggested we arrange a debate through an organization such as the National Academy of Sciences. The response: the academy could not “be relied upon to provide a neutral setting or neutral format,” and I was asked, “Has science now evolved into the telling of ‘tall tales,’ where logic and evidence are no longer required?” A follow-up email stated, “The climate cult does not want to get it right. Climate science is solo corrupt.”[1]

Apparently he received 170 such letters. The right wing has been hyperactive about vilifying global warming. What does the science really say about it? Mark Hertsgaard points to the fact that it's too late to stop the warming, it has already warmed. "At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: it is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it triggers." [2] Hertsgaard points to scientific findings of the UNEP
associated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of 2000 scientific experts from all over the world. Fundamentalism wants us to think that this is false science but it is actually "the most extensive peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history." [3]

The IPCC scientists predict that because of global warming the future will bring more and deadlier extreme weather of all kinds – more hurricanes, tornadoes, downpours, heat waves, droughts and blizzards – and all that comes in their wake: more flooding, landslides, power outages, crop failures, property damage, disease, hunger, poverty and loss of life.
In California, torrential rains induced a mudslide on Jan. 11 that killed ten people, buried children alive and crushed dozens of houses. In 2003, a record summer heat wave left 35,000 – mainly elderly people – dead across Western Europe.[4]

That was back in 2005, if we follow the reports through the years we see those predictions coming true. In 2009, David Biello told us, in Scientific American, the risk was getting worse. A study new at that time, also by the UNIPCC showed that threats "ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods—are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures."[5]

Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heat wave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000, [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there's a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. "Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with [climate change] theory unfortunately.[6]

Climate chnage is already here and it's proved according to Biello temp has risen 1.1degree (fr) further warming of 0.7 is certain. Several studies including MIT shows GW is already worse than predicted. (2000 scientists in IPCCreffered to by Hertsgaard.

 What is this organization the IPCC that these sources are talking about?

 from their website (IPCC):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.[7]

Conservative estimates demonstarte that warming trend can be tied to 150,000 deaths. This is only a conservative estimate. It was made in 2005 and has born out over time.

Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, a toll that could double by 2030.
The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world.
Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who conducted one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to measure the impact of global warming on health, said the WHO data also show that rising temperatures disproportionately affect poor countries that have done little to create the problem. They reached their conclusions after entering data on climate-sensitive diseases into mapping software.[8]

The world Health Organization has this year published a set of "key facts" about global warming that show many of these predictions coming true:

---

Key facts

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Global warming that has occurred since the 1970s caused over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health.

Also on their page:

 Extreme high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe for example, more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded².
 Robine JM et al. Death toll exceeded 70 000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. Les Comptes Rendus/Série Biologies, 2008, 331:171–78.[9]

There are more extreme predictions made just that following year in 2006. We wont know if they are going to bare out until much latter in the century, if they do it will be a major catastrophe and threatens the survival of all humanity. Some predict 10 billion could die by end of the century. James Lovejoy is highly respected environmental scientist who proposed the Gaia theory, that the Earth is a self sustaining organism."Lovelock warns that the world has already passed the point of no return with global warming, and that climate change will kill billions of people in this century as the Earth reaches a “coma'' state from which it may not recover for 100,000 years."[10] Before we dismiss these projections we need to remember that the temperature of the earth has risen 1% and we have seen drastic effects including the virtual elimination of the polar ice caps. The temp is projected to rise much higher, we are just getting started. Even the conservative estimates are dire and too tragic to allow. It's all because it would be a threat to our greed to change our way of life.

Climate change has been adopted into the culture wars. It's now a sign of "obama support" to accept it and of "standing tall against Obama" to deny it. Rania Khalek demonstrates the extent to which right-wing politics has tried to sabotage the public's understanding of the science involved.

 It’s been widely proven that fossil fuel interests, most notably ExxonMobil, used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.  As documented by Greenpeace, in recent years this corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is largely immune to reasoned response.  While the more powerful climate change deniers have manipulative objectives, such as preserving their vested interests in fossil fuels or political posturing with their constituencies, many on the right actually believe climate change is a hoax.  This PR campaign has contributed immensely to denial, but there is still more to the story.[11]

She also argues that cognitive dissonance lurks behind the conservative's ultimate reaosn for denying the such well documented problems. Climate change threatens a whole range of things precious to right wing: individual freedom, property rights, small government, free markets, "unfettered industrial capitalism"[12] (aka the every popular making of money). The thing about the theory of cognitive dissonance is that it explains why certain groups (aka hte 1950s flying saucer cult that Leon Festinger and his students infiltrated) grew more committed to their causes even when they were disproved. For example the group kept putting out dates for the end of the world, the UFOs were supposed to come
and save them right before the end, neither thing ever happened of cousre. The dates came and went with no UFO and no end of the world and yet the members grew more dedicated. As Khalek puts it:

It is far more simple to deny science, than to accept that one's worldview is wrong. Unfortunately, environmental organizations are in a kind of denial as well.  Climate change is about an economic model that demands infinite growth on a finite planet. However, environmental groups are reluctant to relate climate change to economics and politics, probably because conservatives would see it as confirmation of the right-wing myth that global warming is a socialist plot to redistribute the world's wealth.[13]

She doesn't actually explain the rationale behind cognitive dissonance. I've written about cognitive dissonance before. The committment made to a cause is so great that one can't accept it being disproved. So one re-doubles the effort in an attempt to rationalize the failure. It's really akin to the attempt to save the paradigm in Kuhn's theory.[14] Part of that rationalization is the attempt to link Global warming, via liberal propaganda, to anti-Christian causes such as liberals are known to take up. Thus the illusion is caste, and many intelligent Christians believe it, that Global warming is an atheist plot. In fact the rationalization that global warming is not man induces is a sin. We are failing our duty to the Lord to be good Stewards of the earth.

In Genesis 1:26 God gave man dominion over the earth, what does that mean? Traditionally it's translated as "subdue" or "rule over." One read into that aspect a hint of responsible Stewardship. Adam was set in the Garden to "tend it" The term used there implies protect not just cultivate. Gensis 2:15 "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." God did not give man the right to destroy the earth, the term "tend" in Heberw is 'abad meaning
  "'to work or serve,' and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as "to till or cultivate." It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV's choice in its translation: "dress," implying adornment, embellishment, and improvement."[15]

From a Catholic perspective, Philip C.L. Gray defines Stewardship as "Christian stewardship is a way of living in which we recognize that everything belongs to God. All resources must be used for His glory and the common good. Solidarity is the fruit of stewardship."[16] He elaborates examples of Stewardship in scripture:

 In Sacred Scripture we find many examples of stewards being placed over the affairs of their masters. Abram had a steward. He was Eliezer of Damascus, a slave born in the house of Abram. Were Abram not to have offspring, Eliezer would receive his freedom and inherit all Abram's possessions (cf. Gen. 15:2-3). In Genesis 41, we find the story of Joseph and how Pharaoh made him steward over the land of Egypt. Joseph was not part of the royal family, and he would not inherit the throne. Yet, because of Joseph's wisdom and discretion given by God, Pharaoh entrusted the entire kingdom to his care. "[Y]ou shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you" (Gen. 41:40).[17]

He points to Gensis 1:26-28 as the inauguration of human stewardship over the earth. He makes the argument that there's more being said in this passage than just "tend the garden" the whole passes indicates the stewardship expected of Adam and Eve.[18] Modern theologians have developed concepts of Ecological stewardship and Christians from all walks of faith support the notion. "Many moderate and progressive Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals see environmentalism as a consequence of stewardship. In Jewish and Christian traditions stewardship also refers to the way time, talents, material possessions, or wealth are used or given for the service of God."[19]

What we see is that when humanity was in right relatinoship with God (symbolized by the pre fall life in the Garden) we take care of the earth adn protect it. When that relationship is broken and we are separated from God (symbolized by the fall) we must struggle to wrest food from the earth amid thorns and weeds.




Sources

all online sources accessed 2/11/14

[1] Jeffrey L. Bada, "Global Warming Deniers Guilty of Attack on Science," Union Tribune San Diego, On line source, "UT-San Diego." Nov 23 (2013) http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/28/global-warming-deniers-guilty-of-attack-on-science/
Jeffrey L. Bada is professor of Marine Chemistry and former Director of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) in Exobiology in the Geologic Research Division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.
He obtained his PhD in Chemistry from UCSD under the direction of Stanley Miller in 1968.  Prof. Bada’s research deals with the geochemistry of amino acids, organic cosmogeochemistry, the sources and stability of organic compounds on the primitive Earth and other solar system bodies, the origin of homochirality on Earth and the detection of possible remnants of life on solar system bodies both by in situ analyses and from the study of meteorites.


 [2] Mark Hertsgaard, "Kyoto Can't Save us."February 14, (2005) alertnet

http://www.alternet.org/story/21261/kyoto_can%27t_save_us

Mark Hertsgaard, the environment correspondent for The Nation, is the author of six books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future" and, most recently, "HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth."

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5]  David Biello "Risks of Global Warming Rising, Is It too Late to Reverse Course?"Scientific American, Feb 27, (2009) |http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/risks-of-global-warming-rising/

[6] Ibid.

[7] UNIPCC Website http://www.ipcc.ch/

Their statement about who they are.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.Uvjo5fsvxsE

[8] Juliet Eilperin, "Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities," Washington Post,Thursday, November 17, (2005). online, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602197.html

Juliet Eilperin is staff writer for Washington Post

[9] World Health Organization, "Climate change and health Fact sheet N°266," Reviewed November 2013
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

[10] Larry West, "Global Warming May Kill Billions this Century," About.com environmental issues

January 16, (2006) on line
http://environment.about.com/b/2006/01/16/global-warming-may-kill-billions-this-century.htm
Larry West is a professional writer and editor who has written many articles about environmental issues for leading newspapers, magazines and online publications. He has been a guide at About.com since 2004.

[11] Renia Khalek, "Is Cognitive Dissonance Fueling Conservative Denial of Climate Change?" Common Dreams. Tuesday, February 11, (2014) online https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/15-3
 Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized. Her work has appeared at Common Dreams, Salon, The Nation, In These Times, Citizen Radio and more. To see more of Rania’s work visit her blog Dispatches from the Underclass and follow her on twitter @RaniaKhalek.

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid.

[14] Cognitive Dissonance, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[15] Richard T. Ritenbaugh, from "the Bible and the Environment" on "Genesis 2:15, commentaries, forunner commentaries" Bible Tools.org
on line  http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/46/eVerseID/46

[16] Philip C.L. Gray, "Christian Stewardship, What God Expects from us." CERC home, published by Catholilc Educational Resource Center, on line resource http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/environment/en0007.html Original publication, Philip C.L. Gray. "Christian Stewardship: What God Expects from Us." Lay Witness (September 2001).
Philip C.L. Gray is Vice President of Catholics United for the Faith. He is a lay speaker.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] "Stweardship Theology" Wikipedia Nov 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship_%28theology%29
last modified 15 November 2013

Global Warming and Pascal's Wager: Same Loigc.

I posted this first on CADRE blog then on Atheistwatch. It was attacked on an athist blog, I will give their comments and my answers. First here's the original article.

The thing to do with Global warming is not to argue agaisnt it. Use it. Atheists are almost bound to believe it believe in it (I believe in it--not the point). Rather than argue against it as an example of bad lock, it's more useful as an example of good logic. This is so because the logic of Global warming is the same logic used in Pascals wager.

I have two observations to make before getting into this. The first one is about the wage itself. The second about the paradigm used for "risk taker analysis."

(1) Atheists mock and ridicule the wage extremely much, over doing it, becuase they don't understand it's function. Most Christian apologists don't understand it either, so no slight to our Atheist friends. Mine you the wage is an argument I never use. Most people take it as attempt at proving God exists. It is not an attempt to prove that God exists. It's meant as a tiebreaker. It's used after the massive collection of arguments Pascal wrote known as the Pensées Or "thoughts." Those aren't even meant to prove the existence of God but to clue one in on how to realize the reality of God. Although this is my phrase, you wont catch Pascal saying anything that awkward.

(2) The wager is a decision making paradigm not an argument to prove something. The paradigm is based upon Pascal's own invention, mathematical probablity. That's right all the arguments atheists use about simplicity and Baez theoums and all of that indicative reasoning the likelihood of this or that it all goes back to Pascal. He was not a dunce. HE was a mystic, however, and he was not interpreted in proving things logically. His tie breaker, the wager, demonstrates the probability of God being true.

The reason Is say the global warming and the wager use the same logic is because they are examples of what we in college debate used to call "risk taker analysis."An example: let's say I guy a hat. It blows off my head and over a freeway. I have to cross a busy freeway to get the hat back. I must ask myself "is having this hat worth risking my life for?" It could be only if having is worth so much that I am willing risk losing everything for it. A hat, not so much as they say. Now if the hate is a bearer bond worth a million dollars, maybe it is worth risking it all for that. Another aspect of this the risk can be minimized. So part of the equation includes the levels of reward vs risk. For example even a million dollars may not worth risking death for if death virtually certain. So wait until 2:00 am when there are almost no cars on the free way. That has to be balanced agaisnt the risk that the bond will blow away in the mean time. so risk taker analysis means doing a sort of calculus.

It will cost several billion dollars for the medical diagnostic industry to re tool and change from X-ray machines to second generation Doppler ultrasound.This is why they will probably never do it of their own accord. If they did they might save 24,000 lives a year (I am assuming that form of ultra sound can do everything X-Rays do, which it probably can't but in debate years ago we had journal evidence saying it could). Are 24,000 lives worth making an industry spend billions of dollars? What about the government subsidizing? This is just an example of the kinds of questions that one can ask using risk taking analysis. Of course it gets much more complex than that.

The wagers says "there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by following Christ and placing belief in God. But there is everything to lose and nothing to gain by not following Christ." So if that is true the risk taking analysis shows that the much greater risk is in not being a Christian, or whatever. That's breaks the tie between the realization of reality and the doubt fostered by nothing overwhelming direct proof. We can't totally prove it either way, but the greater risk is in not believing. The only thing to be gained by not believing is momentary sinful pleasure which in the long run always runs out and works against the experiencer.

Global warming risk taking analysis. Like the God question we don't have total proof either way. We can be sure that man made source so green house gas are the real cause or even the major catalyst, although there's a good probability that they are. So what is the loss vs gain ratio? does it justify the risk? The risk in believing in global warming is that we will spend a lot of money trying to switch over to non green house producing sources. That will cost profits and might result in economic problems. The worst outcome would be loss of jobs. What is the risk in not assuming it? Doing nothing:

(1) If the theory is right and we do nothing all life on earth might be destroyed at worst, at best, the earth will much hotter, storms more violent, major flooding in many parts of the wold., millions could die.

(2) vs if the theory is wrong and we do a lot to change it anyway, we could have an economic slump in the U.S.

So the risk of loss is much greater if we do nothing than the risk of loss form trying to solve it necessarily.

Of cousre there's the additional factor that we could try to solve but since the problem is not man made (assuming that answer) it would continue despite our efforts. Then we get the worst of both worlds. We die in a super heated world while having an ecnomic slump. Yet thta element is more remote becuase the odds are our life style is at least a contributor to the problem if we change it, even if the cause is not primary our life style it might compensated enough to help minimize the effects. The chances that we would get the worst of both worlds are very small.

We can see from this that both the wager and global warming are forms of risk taker analysis. They both have the same formation: everything to gain by doing X and noting or little to lose. They both have the element that the gain from rejecting action is temporary and self defeating. In terms of the wager one has pleasure form sin but it goes away as you get older, and it's bad for you so you lose your looks sooner and die younger. That's just a short term gain. The gain from rejecting the global warming hypothesis is short term to. As with sin the pleasures of keeping your extravagant life style going a little longer, are short term and offset by the evils of that lifestyle. It's pollution, it's fosters bad nutrition (people have lots of money to spend and they carve new things) it's the whole consumer culture that needs to be overhauled and all our habits changed. So in both cases the life style and the sinful pleasure are short term while the risk of loss is much greater and long term: in religion we risk eternal damnation and in global warming we risk destruction of the life bearing ability of the planet.

It's important to make atheists see that they have such a risk to take becuase the more analogies that stack up for their paradigm the sooner their paradigm (naturalism) will shift. It's very important to point out every inconsistency we can in atheist thinking. for them to know that acceptance of a view point they consider absolutely essential to their acceptance of science as the only way, requires that they also accept the logic of Pascal's wager.

on the blog Great Play net my article is attacked by the author. It's really long piece. he tries to reduce the argument to absurdity. Here's his conclusion:

When all is said and done in this essay, I definitely do think Global Warming is a problem worth preventing. Not only am I convinced by the consensus of the scientists on the issue, but am convinced by the expected utility approach employed by the CADRE that would hold even if there were much less scientific consensus.

I also think the CADRE’s argument works well in reverse: anyone who believes in Pascal’s Wager should also accept the general logic behind Global Warming, though I think the Problem of Evil ultimately forces them to abandon the belief that Global Warming does need to be prevented.

But the CADRE does not establish that I need to accept Pascal’s Wager just because I already accept Global Warming: instead, I can denounce Pascal’s Wager as completely baseless, as I already do.

Additionally, I think the CADRE cannot endorse Global Warming prevention if they want to be consistent with the Problem-of-Evil-defeating idea that needless suffering does not exist.

My response:

Metacrock says:

Friday, September 23, 2011 at 9:19 am

No offense your analysis sux. You are purposely mixing non essential elements with necessary elements to make the comparison seem stupid.

The basic concept was to different beliefs with risk taking analysis. You didn’t look at both of them as risk taking analysis you look at one as quasi risk taking and one as a religious idea you hate.

your summary point of my arugent:

“There is no logical difference between the argument for Global Warming and the argument for Pascal’s Wager, so if you accept one you should accept the other.” calculated to reflect badly on religious thinking. I didn’t say there’s no logical difference I said both are examples of risk talking analysis. I didn’t say if you accept one you should accept the other I said if you accept global warming as a valid way to think you can’t argue that Pasacal’s wager is illogical on the grounds that it’s not a proof becuase it doesn’t have to be, it’s a analysis of risk taking, like the logic that backs global warming in answer to the argument about natural warming.

that point is crucial becuase it’s not global warming senerio itself that’s being compared to the wager, but the answer to the argument against it that say “nature is warming up anyway aside from man’s activity.” the answer is we can’t take the risk, we need clear up our act just in case.”

that’s important becuase you totally mis that concept. you ask “is global warming a wager.” you don’t’ seem to understand what wagers meant or Pascal or the point that we are not talking about global warming per se but the way risk taking analysis fits into the senerio.

My response to other who comment.

Metacrock says:

Monday, September 26, 2011 at 12:10 pm

My response to the title:
“Oh shit! You have to believe in AGW and God, or neither. You can’t consistently do both!” That was a funny thought until I noticed that Pascal’s wager is hardly the only reason to believe these positions.

>>>>missing the point. You can imperiously reject either one or both but not on the grounds that the lgoic of the wager is no good if you agree with the logic of Global warming. that is to say the risk taking analysis part.

Anyway,

Instead, I defer to the large preponderance of climate scientists who do support man-made global warming

>>>> did you not see the bit where I agree with Global warming?

So if someone were to show that climate scientists aren’t experts either, would you become a climate skeptic?

>>>why do atheists always miss the point so profoundly? (I’m assuming he is an atheist maybe he’s not–he reads this blog).

you can read the rest on the link.