Re: [asa] climate change severity

Seems Janice is now focusing on some minor issues. As I have said
before, I and others have demolished much of her 'arguments' and shown
how the facts of global warming are well supported by the data and the
models.

Indeed, Janice choses her 'experts' and as I said, as Christians,
Augustine's warnings apply equally to us quoting our own ignorance or
that of others. This becomes even more damaging when a simple search
or some more indepth research can quickly uncover the fallacies behind
one's arguments.

Sure, global warming has been politicized by both sides, no doubt
about it and the science behind global warming, like the science
behind evolution strongly supports a particular scenario, and all the
other side can do is cherry pick our ignorance.

Thus we notice how Janice, in her unfamiliarity with the facts,
describes environmentalism as a religion for urban atheists. Augustine
would roll over in his grave... All because Janice believes that there
are some vague similiarities between religion and Christianity. In
fact, these similarities argue for environmentalism being a just cause
for us Christians, and in fact, although some Christians believe that
they have the full reign in destroying the earth as the second coming
is near, many Christians take the impact of humans on the environment
seriously and stand up to protect the individual from such
environmental health risks as abestos, smog, cancer causing agents etc
etc.
Janice, in her haste to cast environmentalists as 'religious faith'
seems to ignore that environmentalism is first based on good science
and as such may form a basis for many beliefs. All Janice can do is
create and knock down some strawmen. After all, when the science is
lacking, what else is there left to be done?

Now that most of Janice's 'arguments' and 'claims' have been rebutted
or shown to be founded in ignorance more than fact, I was hoping that
Janice would be more receptive to Augustine's teachings. Sadly enough
she yet has to appreciate the impact.

Janice: Unlike you, Charles Carrigan, et. al., I don't think people
are "the problem"

And yet the anthropogenic component of global warming, the ozone layer
has been well established. As such 'people' are the problem in two
ways, some of them are actively involved in promoting a path which is
self destructive and a large number will be affected negatively by the
impact of the actions of 'a few'. Global warming will have significant
effects on others and we cannot stand by and argue that since it does
not immediately affect me, we should ignore it.

In fact, it is the negative impacts on other people which drives many
of the environmentalists.

Of course some people may be driven by other motives, such as the
recent report on Exxon Mobile pointed out.

When I pointed out that most scientists accept the fact of global
warming, Janice quote mined a statement to pursue a red herring

<quote>Discussion at a meeting was cut short when serious objections
were raised to a pet theory of the scientist leading the discussion.
Such is the quality of open debate in IPCC circles." </quote>

IPCC is but one of many circles of debate and nothing here contradicts
my statement that most scientists accept the facts of global warming.
Careful quote mining and cherry picking are not going to change these
simple facts.

So here is some homework for Janice:

Could you provide us a better reference for John Christy's remarks as
so far I have only found a single source which is the website which
quotes snippets. In addition, what were the 'serious concerns' raised,
where they relevant to the IPCC report?

<quote> John Christy notes that, at one of the meetings held prior to
publication of the third IPCC report, serious concerns were raised by
other scientists about the 'pet theory' of the group leader — at which
point the discussion was halted.</quote>

Looking forward to some clarity, allowing us to determine if indeed
Janice's suggestions that counters my observation that most scientists
accept the fact of global warming and the human component to it. Or is
this yet another example of cherry picking?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 6 14:59:12 2007