The 95 percent confidence limit reflects a long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith.
But when it comes to climate alarmism, it is time to dump that standard.
103 Replies to “Harvard Professor: When it Comes to Climate Alarmism, Scientists Should be More Like Religious Adherents”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Did you read the article you linked to ?
I read most of the article–as much as I could stomach. Pure tripe.
Here’s an example:
Even as scientists consciously rejected religion as a basis of natural knowledge, they held on to certain cultural presumptions about what kind of person had access to reliable knowledge.
What does this mean? It’s just nonsense. It was religious people who brought about, in the Christian West, what we know as science. The opposition she posits is just nonsense.
And is she aware that as long ago as 300 A.D. St. Augustine cautioned against the use of the Bible as a source of scientific/natural knowledge.
Then there is this:
ypically, scientists apply a 95 percent confidence limit, meaning that they will accept a causal claim only if they can show that the odds of the relationship’s occurring by chance are no more than one in 20. But it also means that if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim. It’s like not gambling in Las Vegas even though you had a nearly 95 percent chance of winning.
The second sentence doesn’t necessarily follow from the first sentence.
But, what’s worse is this:
she is basically saying that if we run some statistical analysis correlating two things, that if the odds are greater than 1 in 20 that something occurred by chance, then the results won’t be accepted.
Well, turn it around. If the odds of something happening by chance are less than 1 in 20, then the correlation is acceptable. The odds of the genetic code—that is, any three nucleotides ‘coding’ for a particular amino acid—are around 1 in 40. It would seem that we shouldn’t consider this identification of a sequence of three nucleotides being associated with a particular amino acid as something that “happened by chance.” We should accept that the sequence and the amino acid were associated in some way other than by chance. But how could you have “life” via random processes if this is so?
You are missing the point. The article is suggesting that science tends to be over-cautious: eg: the standard required for accepting the experimental evidence for the existence of the Higgs particle was 5 standard-deviations or some such, which is equivalent to 99.999% confidence or similar.
The article goes on to say that this should be relaxed if the consequences of an error are serious: eg: in the case of climate change the standard may need to be lowered to 90% (why not 50% 10%?) because the cost of an error is so great.
Graham2, why even 10%? Why not just take it on faith. If it is that important, just believe. Believe. Did you even read the title given to this post?
So hot we saw summer snow for the first time since the 19th century. And so hot our garden failed due to below normal temperatures- not one heat wave and abnormally chilly nights.
Umm, 40% of parts per million, which we know is not only very insignificant but also overwhelmed by other, more potent so-called greenhouse gases. It’s like saying adding a fart to a sunroom will make it warmer (methane being a greenhouse gas).
So hot we saw summer snow Joe: Climate change is thought to be responsible for disturbing the polar-vortex, resulting in the unusual intrusion of (cold) polar air much further south than normal.
The local looneybin let’s you keep a garden little Joey?
Wow, that’s mighty nice of them.
Graham, The climate changes because weather patterns change due to several factors- the Sun’s output, the earth’s orbit, axial tilt, precession, volcanic output and ocean currents being the major factors. We are very minor players with our major contribution coming from urban heat islands (and dreaded plastic and styrofoam).
No AVS, global warming chilled my garden to death. I got to keep the memories of planting, tending to it and watching it show promise only to kak out in August.
Joe: Climate scientists dont agree with you.
Maybe you’re just a bad gardener.
Graham:
Climate change is thought to be responsible for disturbing the polar-vortex, resulting in the unusual intrusion of (cold) polar air much further south than normal.
Boy that thought-to-be stuff is some amazing science. Just like that amorphous “climate change” being tested for “responsible” or not.
OK so this political theater of “climate science” has one thing rather amazingly unique: as the only area where empiricism has been virtually entirely driven by “computer models”. You know it really is funny that there are hardcore leftists out there that hate computers and harbor disdain for the whole modern technology enterprise, but they surely love this ‘science’ which came out of that enterprise. Do they get the irony here? Not a whit. They will get in their trucks and vans in Houston or Austin and trek over to the Kerrville festival. For days of singing and speaking about the folly of hydrocarbons and motor vehicles. And getting angry when I point out that horse and wagon dependency would make such a camping trip to their ‘home base’ economically impossible.
I was just wondering BTW, if the amazing predictive powers behind the “climate change” movement also predicted the “polar vortex” behavior after all. Sure would be handy if it did and kind of funny if it did not. Do we have that scenario documented? If those computer models predicted climate change did they lay out this polar vortex scenario? Also what about those excessive hurricane predictions? One hurricane in six years, that’s climate change?
hattip to commenter Gary at WMBriggs blog
Another comment on Oreskes’s opinion-piece…
Playing Dumb on Statistical Significance
“…no weight at all.”
In what way don’t they agree with me? And what is their evidence?
BTW I know there are climate scientists who agree with me. Go figure…
Maybe you’re just an ignorant troll- oops there isn’t any maybe about that.
Let’s see, every year I have a garden that produces a variety of veggies. This year the garden didn’t produce even though I did exactly the same routine as always- the only difference being the chilly summer. Science would say that means the chilly summer is at fault but AVS is too dim to grasp that.
This is a very interesting, subtle, and complicated debate which deserves more than the usual highly politicised and personal rants. There are several well-known problems with using confidence intervals as a measure of justified belief (a Bayesian approach would be much more justifiable). However, two of the underlying ideas of in Oreske’s piece are surely right:
* If we have good a priori reasons for believing something to be true than we do not need such strong additional data to accept it. This is just Bayesian thinking. If we know that there has been large oil spill and we observe sea bird populations have dropped then we don’t need to observe many of them covered in oil to reasonably conclude that the oil is the cause of the decline – if there was no such oil spill then it would require much stronger data to reasonably conclude that was the cause.
* If the adverse consequences of a type 2 error (dismissing the hypothesis when it is in fact true) are much greater than the adverse consequences of a type 1 error (accepting the hypothesis when it is in fact false) then logically we should accept the hypothesis on less strong evidence than we would otherwise. This is elementary decision theory and more of a political decision than a scientific assertion. So for example, if someone comes up with what might well be an effective Ebola cure then we might act on the hypothesis it works with less rigorous evidence than we would for a cure for acne – because the downside of a type 2 error – ignoring it if it does work – is so large.
This still leaves it open to debate as to how much these points apply to climate change. I don’t think any one can dispute the strong a priori reasons for believing climate change will happen. The increase in green house gasses and the physics of the greenhouse effect are very established. The dispute is more about how much not about whether. The consequences are bit trickier to balance.
‘97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong
Oops
The Sun’s output, the earth’s orbit, axial tilt, precession, volcanic output and ocean currents- they affect climate and are well established. And they dwarf anything man does.
Deserts are cool at night because they lack water vapor, the CO2 is still there.
#19 Joe
I suggest you read up a bit more about the topic. Take water vapour as an example. It is true that water vapour makes significantly the biggest contribution to the greenhouse effect. That is one reason why desert temperatures fluctuate so much. But water vapour is a quick changing effect (the level can change in days or even hours) that causes temporary fluctuations while gasses such as CO2 hang around in the atmosphere for years or even decades and create relatively permanent changes in average temperature.
Indeed the level of water vapour is to a large extent determined by the temperature, so you get positive feedbacks – higher temperatures lead to more water vapour lead to higher temperatures. This feedback amplifies the effect of an increase in the longer-term gasses such as CO2.
In summary average water vapour levels are a result of increasing greenhouse gasses which amplifies their effect on temperature.
Mark, We know that warmer oceans release more CO2 than colder oceans. We know that sunlight warms the oceans. We know that clean air allows more sunlight through to the surface. The oceans warm releasing their CO2 and that dwarfs man’s input.
CO2 is parts per million and no one has demonstrated our climate is that sensitive. Plants need CO2 and we need plants. A warmer planet = more plants.
Joe
As I said, you need to learn about the subject. The movements of CO2 between oceans and atmosphere and between biomass and atmosphere are indeed much larger then the movement of CO2 from fossil fuels to atmosphere (roughly 20 to 1). However, they are roughly in balance – the movements in equal the movements out – while the flow from fossil fuels is one-way and cumulative over a timescale of decades (eventually the oceans should absorb the excess but not over timescales that matter).
We have compelling evidence that
a) the level of CO2 is rising (we just measure it)
b) it is due to burning of fossil fuels. That is because CO2 from burning fossils fuels has a different proportion of CO2 isotopes from other sources and we can see the proportion in the atmosphere is changing.
The low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is utterly irrelevant and even the most hard-bitten sceptics have abandoned that line. Just as a concentration of arsenic of 10 parts per billion can be fatal a very small concentration of CO2 can have a very large effect. It doesn’t matter how much non-greenhouse gas there is – it will not dilute the effect of the greenhouse gasses.
There are debateable issues over climate change – particularly over the consequences and degree of change – but you haven’t come up with any of them.
Graham2:
The article goes on to say that this should be relaxed if the consequences of an error are serious: eg: in the case of climate change the standard may need to be lowered to 90% (why not 50% 10%?) because the cost of an error is so great.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. IMO you have it backwards.
When you are about to spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to combat a ‘possible’ crippling problem, and, if you’re going to condemn whole sectors of impoverished populations to future poverty by denying them technology based on this ‘possible’ problem, then you better be pretty darn sure about what you’re talking about.
You’ve swallowed the cool-aid.
Don’t come here with your global warming (climate change) nonsense.
Mark Frank:
Does CO2 in the atmosphere directly cause “warming”? [Of course, I should be asking you does it cause “change”]
#24 PAV
yes – I am surprised you need to ask that – it follows straight from the physics. However, if that were the only warming effect then it would not be great cause of concern as it is a log function – you have to double the CO2 to get the same increase in temperature. But it clearly is not the only effect – water vapour feedback being one of the strongest.
You know there are plenty of sites where you can discuss these things with real experts.
PAV
It is complicated and important question. The thing we don’t want to do is turn it into an over-simple slanging match.
PaV,
You might want to check out Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation and down radiations which proves Co2 causes increase in temperature
Mark Frank:
A hope that does not seem to be universally shared here!
What is the connection between the debate over the rate and causes of climate change and the “Intelligent Design” community?
PAV:
There are plenty of changes individuals can make. Improving insulation, heat-recovery ventilation, incorporating features to take advantage of solar gain like large south-facing windows that are cost-effective in the long run. Burning fuel more efficiently (condensing furnaces) and solar water heating. Exploiting sustainable sources like coppiced timber. No huge investments required and scope for new business to exploit the demand for new technologies. These measures can save money in the long run, as well as conserving fossil fuel stocks for future generations. Where’s the downside?
Mark:
I asked if it caused “warming” directly. You say “yes.” But what you do not advert to is this fact: water vapor is more of a “hothouse” gas than CO2 by an order of magnitude. CO2, allegedgly, causes a “warming” of the surface waters, releasing water vapor, which is really what “triggers” the “warming.”
Now, just imagine that either tectonic forces, and/or, magma cause the ocean to warm slightly, what will happen? More water vapor will be released, and the atmosphere will warm up. Given the huge density differences between water and water vapor, it seems the place to look for “warming” should be first the oceans themselves. What about underwater volcanoes for example? What about Iceland for example, which is nothing more than the mid-Atlantic trench coming up to the surface. And how much CO2 does that release?
As to models, computer models for a large time frame, will be most accurate at first, and, then, increasingly less accurate. So why have these models been unable to predict the weather for the last sixteen years? Why should we believe these models when it comes from 75 years from now? Why should we spend all this money chasing our tail?
I bet there are whole bunch of the very rich who are just waiting to get their handouts from governments around the world. Have you considered that angle?
Are there any other topics for which IDers think the entirety of a scientific field are either clueless morons or liars?
Or is that only evolutionary biology and climate science?
How about all the nonsense peddled by the medical profession:
– The suppression of natural, 100% effective cancer cures by the whole field of cancer researchers?
– How about the nefarious plot to give autism to all those kids in order to see vaccines?
– Or all those virologists that are securing research funding by claiming that HIV causes AIDS?
No. Just go to “Watts Up With That” and you will see differently. The low concentration of CO2 is irrelevant to any climate change.
The effect of greenhouse gases is nothing when compared to the Sun, our orbit and every thing else I mentioned. Greenhouse gases are great for keeping nights a little warmer by keeping the heat around a little longer, but they are not heat amplifiers. And a warmer earth is a better earth anyway.
Increased water vapour from warming equals increased clouds which cool. Sunlit soot melts ice and snow even when the ambient temperature is below freezing.
Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing and yet the temperature has not. If you were right that shouldn’t happen.
Pav
See my comment #20 where I cover exactly this point.
Do you seriously think that after so much debate and research scientists have not allowed for these factors?
Models are useful but they are not the whole story and you need to understand how they are used. Climate scientists don’t just run one model and say that is how it is going to be. They run thousands and explore what happens under different scenarios and assumptions. Suppose you had to predict traffic levels in third world cities. It would be really hard to predict the exact patterns over the next decade but you predict with some confidence, given the way populations are moving into cities, that traffic will increase significantly. Modelling would give us some idea of how that might develop and best and worst scenarios given key assumptions. Modelling thousands of times under many assumptions would give us even more confidence.
Isn’t this an ad hominem argument.
There are scientists from both fields who agree with us.
I do find it odd, Wd400, that some IDers adamantly claim Climate Change is Natural while many Evolutionists preach it is caused by Design. Go figure:)
LoL! @ ppolish
Has CO2 levels risen?
The science says…….
Nope…..
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
This begs the question, why are such reasonable people, such as materialsts always arguing against the science?
I wonder…. is it perhaps because they are by far the most superstitious lot known to man? They do after all believe matter made itself and mud just magically became alive don’t they?
@37
Andre, really? Really???
This is even worse than your mis-reading in the ‘Proteins are defying textbooks’ thread.
@38
Oh, goodie. You doubled down.
Andre #38
Do you really think that article says that CO2 levels are not rising? Or are you just having us on?
Andre. You should read things more carefully, when you base these silly “insults” on your own misunderstanding of plain English you end up looking a bit foolish.
In case a second reading is not enough, the “airborne fraction” is proportion of human emissions that end up in the atmosphere (and not the ocean or land). The fact the fraction is less than one is a problem for anyone that wants to claim the rise in CO2 is not down to human emissions or comes from the ocean, btw.
WD, Evo Theory & Global Warming emerged at just about the same time. The Peppered Moth’s wings turning black to match the industrial soot of Darwin’s time was offered up as evidence of Natural Selection.
Darwin’s biggest mistake was deducing Natural Selection from Artificial Selection instead of Artificial Design. He was so so close to the correct idea – Natural Design.
The Industrial Revolution and it’s impact on the Evolution of moths to polar bears is yet another example of Artificial Design and yes Natural Design in action. Nature is a sucker for Design.
And can one ask what this “natural design” is, and how it explains, for instance, the rise and fall of moth morphs?
MarkF:
Do you seriously think that after so much debate and research scientists have not allowed for these factors?
I got into a discussion with someone who worked in the field, and whose penchant it was to silence the skeptics.
I argued that higher magmatic activity could easily account for what we’re seeing.
He did a calculation and said that there needed to be 300,000 underwater volcanoes to account for the higher CO2. I googled, and found a site that estimated that there were 300,000 underwater volcanoes. I thought this was interesting.
Here’s what I asked him (and I’ll ask you, wd400): the warming we’re experiencing started in the 1800’s. If man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming, then why did it start way back then when emissions were almost, if not, completely negligible?
Follow-up question: If man-made CO2 production is the culprit, then why did it warm up more quickly (or, at the very least, as quickly) during the first part of the 20th century as it did in the second half, when CO2 emissions were much, much higher? Why wasn’t the slope angling upwards?
And, of course, why has temperature been roughly the same for the last 16 to 17 years?
Ah, yes, men and their numbers. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
They run thousands and explore what happens under different scenarios and assumptions.
Yes, you would assign a range of values for a multiplicity of variables. But, at the end of a particular year, with some consensus figure, you would then use those “outputs” as “inputs” for the next year. And if your equations are anyways off, the error simply multiplies itself year-by-year. And the uncertainty grows, year-by-year. So, if you’re off at the beginning—way off–then 100 years from now you have meaningless numbers.
Likewise, run the model backwards and see if you can retrodict known climate data.
Modelling thousands of times under many assumptions would give us even more confidence.
It seems it would give you “even more” spread, and, hence, less confidence.
BTW, there’s this whole controversy over the summary of the international climate report, and the actual report itself, with it being said that the summary, not put together by experts, does not always comport with what the actual scientists have concluded. IOW, politics.
And can one ask what this “natural design” is, and how it explains, for instance, the rise and fall of moth morphs?
You might enjoy reading Spetner’s newest book, and about what he calls “rapid” evolution. (pp70-80 roughly) He proposes NBEH, the “non-random evolution hypothesis.” I didn’t realize there’s this whole history with lizards and guppies showing sympatric populations diverging genetically so quickly. Sure looks like environmental cue-ing.
WD, a quick google search reveals info on critters “evolving quickly” in response to climate change. I’m sure we will be “surprised” many a time by how fast seemingly purposeless unguided managed to do the job.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....ntist.html
Evolutionists should be terrified of global warming on many different levels;)
Yeah, but what’s “natural design” and how does it explain the evolution of the example you mentioned?
PaV @ 44
Wow. Another case of fine tuning ?
Your questions seem to be too common. Entire section exist to answer such questions at skeptical science
PaV @ 45
Those 365 originally created Jewish species of beasts and 365 birds are sure handy
ppolish @ 46
Isn’t environmental change a factor in evolution ?
Environmental change is a factor in ID also, Methink. Designed purposefull guided environmental change (like global warming) is a better fit within an ID theory though. And how does Nature respond? Purposelessly and unguided? Nope, sorry.
ppolish @ 51
I don’t get it.What do you mean by ‘purposeful’. You mean Global warming is deliberately designed to change environment to guide change in species ? Are you implying ToE never said environment was not a factor in evolution ?
Can you explain how “guided” responses to environment could explain the example you mentioned (the peppered moths), or why the standard (non-guided) explanation fails.
MrThink, how does unguided purposeless Evo explain the emergence of a mother earthly coal powered steam engine?
Wd400, completely black “peppered” moths. Unguided and purposeless within a decade? Nope, they were designed with that capability, Design was there pre-black.
Right, but what I’m asking for is evidence, not your own (seemingly uniformed) opinion.
C’mon Wd400, some of the CO2 molecules bouncing around the atmosphere are guided. They’re there on purpose. Guided molecules directing Evolution in a small way. Oh a big way sorry.
OK, bye.
hrun0815
The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. The paper I quoted in #37 showed clearly that the oceans have the ability to absorb and recycle the CO2 much better than we anticipated.
But did you see this paper?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....3/abstract
from the paper above;
“The export of organic carbon from the surface ocean by sinking particles is an important, yet highly uncertain, component of the global carbon cycle. Here we introduce a mechanistic assessment of the global ocean carbon export using satellite observations, including determinations of net primary production and the slope of the particle size spectrum, to drive a food-web model that estimates the production of sinking zooplankton feces and algal aggregates comprising the sinking particle flux at the base of the euphotic zone. The synthesis of observations and models reveals fundamentally different and ecologically consistent regional-scale patterns in export and export efficiency not found in previous global carbon export assessments. The model reproduces regional-scale particle export field observations and predicts a climatological mean global carbon export from the euphotic zone of ~6 Pg C yr?1. Global export estimates show small variation (typically?<?10%) to factor of 2 changes in model parameter values. The model is also robust to the choices of the satellite data products used and enables interannual changes to be quantified. The present synthesis of observations and models provides a path for quantifying the ocean's biological pump."
Biological pump…… chew on it for a while……
Design everywhere, engineering solutions everywhere!
Here are two papers saying no to manmade climate change….
http://www.climatechangedispat.....nmade.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14360.abstract
Not man made climate change
Sorry…..
ppolish @ 54
You make less sense now than in comment # 51 ! Drunk ? Cheers! 🙂
Pav
Well of course for increased warming it is not the absolute number of volcanoes but the additional volcanoes that matter. But more to the point this little anecdote is not evidence. I repeat – do you seriously think that climate scientists have not considered other sources of ocean warming?
There are many things that influence the global temperature record. A crude correlation of temperature against CO2 is far too simple and really only relevant to those that want to play political games (on either side of the debate). What matters is if the temperature is higher than it would have been without anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This then provides evidence of the contribution of these gases and some indication of what the effect might be if the concentration continues to increase. Also the global temperature record is only one piece of evidence – although an important one.
Absolutely – which is you and I both should be very careful of jumping to conclusions based on what we read on our favourite web sites.
I think you are confused about the purpose of this type of modelling. It is not unique to climate change. It is used widely whenever there is a very complex system which cannot be rerun for real multiple times e.g. economics and urban planning. The idea is not to make a single prediction but to explore the limits given different assumptions. So knowing the spread is one of the aims. If you do this under a wide range of assumptions then you can have some confidence the results are somewhere within the spread. More importantly you can relate the different outcomes to different assumptions and thus increase your understanding of what matters.
I don’t deny that politics is also involved. That is why it is important for the likes of you and I not to be driven by our own politics (but also to recognise our own ignorance).
Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing and yet the temperature has not been steadily increasing. The CO2 alarmists have lost.
Andre, you have demonstrated that on two completely different occasions you completely misinterpret the fi dings of an article to fit your forgone conclusion. And Sven after repeated corrections you are completely unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.
Your posts now, similar to maybe BA77, simply evoke scrolling.
Andre, are you turning into a materialist/evolutionist? 😉
About climate change, here is an extremely interesting article on Phys.org about a false assumption on which most models of climate change in the past have been built on.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-s.....seeps.html
Recently, a particular species of foraminifera was found that was previously
Now this is good science!! We have some real data to go on. The interpretation of it is the tricky part, but at least now we know that forams CAN live in poorly oxygenated environments. Up until now, scientists did not know this. In fact they thought that was NOT the case. AND, the kicker is, they based a lot of their climate models on this wrong belief/assumption!
This just goes to show how difficult it is to reconstruct history.
Scientists must make many assumptions in these models and even if these assumptions seem to be plausible, they can turn out to be false, like this example shows. They are doing the best they can, but here is a good example of the problems we encounter when doing historical science. It is very different from real science that uses the scientific method because of how much interpretation and the need for assumptions that normally cannot be tested to draw conclusions.
How many other false assumptions/beliefs are included in current day climate models?
Perhaps we will never know!
So, does more work have to be done here? Sure. These results must be properly interpreted – another challenge that is susceptible to the same problem of not being able to test your interpretation.
Can the data be tweaked to save the models of climate change that have been built on top of it OR will these climate change models come crashing down?
No doubt, it will take lots of convincing for something like that to happen. Beloved models are never easily parted with, but this discovery certainly shows that these previously held climate change models are now questionable as to their accuracy.
Now we have actual data that shows one of the assumptions used to create these models is questionable. Let’s do more work and see where it leads.
Up until now, no one knew that this species of foraminera was able to live in poorly oxygenated environments. Now we have evidence that it can!
We need to remember that the important thing is that science progresses, not that models are saved!
This should also be a lesson for climate alarmists and all scientists who deal in the area of historical science. Building models on similar “plausible” assumptions and untestable models might be the best we can hope for, but it is not conclusive by any means. It’s just not as simple as many would have us believe.
QUESTION: If these findings hold, how many years do you think it will take text books, TV, science articles, & climate models to accurately reflect this new found knowledge?
Predictions anyone?
First of all, I’m guessing they will find a way to either question the interpretation of the discovery or tweak the model to accommodate it. I’m not holding my breath for models to come crashing down! That would be too embarrassing.
Like I said, beloved models are hard to part with! Often times, contradictory data is simply tweaked to save the model.
We’ll see.
tjguy
This seems a bit unlikely. Who told you?
Another way to describe “tweaking the model to accommodate it” is “modify the model in the light of new information” which is exactly what you should do. Models are really the only way of exploring what will happen to such a complex thing as the climate. The trick is to make them as accurate as possible and also explore how sensitive they are to various assumptions.
MarkF:
Well of course for increased warming it is not the absolute number of volcanoes but the additional volcanoes that matter.
Or, as I said above, the magma becomes hotter via a change in earth’s core—something that recently has been documented to have happened.
You’ve stopped being scientific. I ask you a simple, straighforward question, and you run for the hills.
You still have the spread I was talking about. You can average the spread, if you want, and feel good about that. But what happens when everything falls “outside” of the “spread,” which it has done now for almost 18 years? What’s the point of the models?
Mark, my political ideology has nothing to do with my scientific understanding of this alleged “warming.” I need proof. I live in California. The Spanish Mission throughout California, mostly built in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, were ruined by earthquakes for the most part in, and around, the 1810-1835 time period. This corresponds to a time when the latest round of warming began. Why the earthquakes? Likely because of magma intrusion–a once disclaimed possibility, but one for which evidence is now mounting. Look at the warming in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, massive volcanic explosions, just when temperatures start to shoot up. There are two sources of heat: the sun and the earth’s core. If you’re interested in the source of heat, you should exclude both those sources before diving into “man-made global warming.”
And, BTW, what is the contribution of “man-made CO2” emissions out of the total CO2 geocycle? 4%! That’s right: 4%! So completely shut everything down, all man inspired origins of CO2, and you reduce the effects of CO2 on the planet by 4%!
Please! This is just ridiculous.
Mark @66
Did you read the article? They told me! I gave some of the relevant quotes in the post above. Did you miss them?
Yes, when done honestly, but sometimes they go all out to dream up theory saving devices to try and make it work. They can’t test their ideas, but still claim their theory is valid as a result. Making stuff up to save a theory is not science.
One example is that of inflation which is a theory rescue device for the big bang. Another would be the amount of dark matter and dark energy that are claimed to exist. This is necessary to save the Big Bang theory.
You are right that models are the only way of exploring what will happen to such a complex thing as a climate which should remind us that we probably don’t know squat!
We do the best we can with what we have, but who is willing to bet that all our assumptions and interpretations are correct or even close?
Not me!
tjguy
Yes I read the article and your quotes. None of them indicate they based climate models on the presence of this organism. It was used to estimate what the climate was like in the geologic past – far too long ago to be relevant to climate models.
I do respect the sceptical case, there are important points to be made and it is a complex subject; but some of the responses from the sceptics in this discussion amaze me. It is late – but tomorrow I will make an effort to list them.
What kind of “model” predicts 50 million refuges due to Global Warming by 2010, fails and can then be modified? Evidently the kind where predicted Refugee MAPS are pulled down.
Fortunately, we have websites and easily accessible archives. Directly from UNEP(United Nations Environment Programme) itself. The failed 50 Million Climate Refugee MAP. Taken down after it was discovered a gross failure.
Failed Prediction? – Pull Down the Map
Did New York Times, NBC, or PBS report failures of these Climate Predictions by UNEP?
I briefly searched, googling – failed unep climate predictions – with New York Times and PBS. Searched New York Times site for failed climate predictions as well. Nothing at their site, maybe bad search engine or need better search terms.
Many areas UNEP predicted for 50 Million refugees now have populations increases across China and much of Asia. Bangledesh has increased land nass, not lost it.
These type of disastorous failures by Global Warming Alarmist naturally leads to distrust. That’s not peoples fault, nor is it about ignorance. Unless it is the ignorance of Alarmist and activist within these organizations. The fault of alarmist who tossed aside scientific standards to forecast predictions hyped on a Fear Index for End of the World conclusions.
When their wild predictions failed, they decided a name change from Global Warming to Climate Change would suffice. Does that sound like science? Or, public relations?
As if people were still reading newspapers, do not have access to the internet and cannot verify for themselves failed predictions. Most people’s radar went off and asked, if Global Warming is true, why the name change?
People want clean environments and less pollution. Certainly I do. But extremist and politicians predicting and chanting Global Warming, End of World, Doom and Gloom did a disservice to science. As did many scientist who joined the fringe or political edge.
Truth is, Global Warming was never just about science.
Advocating the loosening of standards now after failed predictions of Global Warming is bad science in the name of activism.
Renaming Global Warming to Climate Change is not science. It’s public relations propaganda and re-imaging after failure.
… “Senior Research Scientist”
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
That was the year 2000.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
What has happened since then?
Britain’s Heaviest Snowfall google search
from a person tracking snowfall for fun…
“2010/11December 2010 will go down as an infamous winter month in the UK (perhaps it should be added to our famous winters run down?). Temperatures were around 5c below average which made it the coldest December in over 100 years, and there was significant and widespread snowfall to go with the cold.”
headlines on search for coldest winter seem to agree with him…
uk coldest winter
One of the links from the search…
UK faces coldest winter in 30 years – forecasts – The Guardian
I think if anything, with research scientist like Dr. David Viner and others, we should renew our skepticism and demand better standards.
Bing Search…
Germany’s coldest winter
China’s Coldest Winter
India’s coldest winter
coldest day in 44 years – Delhi
coldest Jacksonville, FL weather in 30 years
Russia’s coldest winter
Obama’s home – Chicago’s Coldest Ever Winter in History since records began 142 years ago.
Does climate “change?” Obviously, but is todays climate change due to industry and transportation generated CO2? Or cows?
Mark @ 69
OK, perhaps my post was confusing. When I said “climate models”, i didn’t necessarily mean models of global warming, but rather models of hoe the climate changed in the ancient past. How much this effects current models of global warming or if it affects them, I don’t know for sure. I didn’t intend to make that claim.
Perhaps this was not the best discussion to pick to post this.
The article did say this:
” With that idea in mind, scientists have developed a concept of what the ocean and climate was like in the past.”
“That idea” is the false idea that these creatures only existed in well oxygenated environments. So this false assumption/belief means that their understanding of what the climate was like in the geologic past is probably wrong.
In #69 I said I would list some of the more amazing responses from the sceptics in this discussion. I don’t have time to list them all but here is a selection. First here are some of the common errors.
Dismissing global temperature average because of local exceptions.
Of course in specific places round the world you will get variations from the overall trend. That’s why we take an average.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere
True but irrelevant. What matters is how much effect that low concentration has.
Water vapour accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect
True but irrelevant. Water vapour is a positive feedback effect of increased CO2 (and other gases). See my comment #20.
CO2 is only about 4% of the carbon flow between atmosphere and ocean.
True. In fact it is only about 2% of the total flow between atmosphere and ocean + biomass, but again irrelevant. The other flows are approximately in balance. The CO2 from anthropogenic sources is an additional 4% each year. There is little doubt about this as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured and it is known to be from anthropogenic sources because of the distribution of isotopes.
There has been no change in the temperature record in the last 17 years
The rate of increase of the average surface level temperature has slowed – not stopped. I personally found this to be good news and raised my hopes that the sceptics were right. However, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting so the heat must be going somewhere. The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperate increase in line with increased energy. Other indications of global warming such as artic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue. 2014 was the warmest year on record so this welcome hiatus may unfortunately be coming to an end. (It was also the year my house flooded so ending my optimism).
Volcanoes, magma, sunspots whatever actually account for warming
Well of course many other factors contribute to the earth’s temperature. I asked Pav whether he seriously thought climate scientists had not taken these into account – he did not reply. The fact is the climate scientists have taken many, many factors into account and they do explain warming and cooling trends until recently – but since about 1980 it has only been possible to explain the record by taking into account anthropogenic green-house gases.
We then have some specific errors.
In #37 Andre links to a paper which he thinks says CO2 levels have not risen (despite the fact that levels have been directly measured). The article is about something totally different. It is about the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2. As it is says in the paper, emission targets are based on the assumption that this is true but some scientists were concerned the oceans ability to absorb CO2 might decline.
In #44 PAV muddled the requirement for 300,000 additional underwater volcanoes with the absolute number of volcanoes. When this was pointed out he switched to magma.
In #65 tjguy confuses evidence for the geological climate record (i.e. over millions of years) with climate models (i.e. over decades or centuries) and incidentally accuses me of not reading the paper.
In #67 PAV writes:
I already discussed the 4% above – unlike other flows it is an accumulation which has taken CO2 concentrations from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 50 years. What is different about this statement is the conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that reducing the CO2 concentration or the CO2 rate by 4% would reduce the effects by 4% (whatever those effects might be). It is not a linear relationship.
As I have said a couple of times. There are some good sceptical points to be made – particularly about the consequences of climate change – and bodies such as the IPCC have been sucked into the politics and made rash and silly statements. But the kind of comments I read above destroy the credibility of the sceptical community.
I think that a lot of skeptics could take a look at Richard Muller. A highly trained physicist, Muller was doubtful about many global warming claims, and said so in no uncertain terms in a series of public lectures.
Ultimately Muller decided to show all those alarmists wrong. He secured funding from Gates, the Koch brothers and others, surrounded himself with Scirntists that did not have a stake in global warming (yet were highly skilled in math, stats, and other relevant disciplines) and recreated the climate data from scratch.
My guess is that many of you know or can guess the results, but it’s still worth listening to him now:
http://climatecrocks.com/2015/.....l-warming/
MF, and don’t forget that we just had a whole thread about supposed fraud with pH measurements and insinuations about the so-called climategate.
Yet, after further investigations (for climategate nearly ten independent investigations in two countries by both academic and government institutions) no impropriety was found and the underlying science is sound.
Yet, instead of admitting that the aspersions were simply wrong we are off to yet a new thread filled with denial, accusations, and aspersions.
hrun0815
Thanks. You clearly know more about this than I do.
I would like to emphasise I wish the sceptics were right. But I have to accept the evidence.
Again: Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing and yet the temperature has not been steadily increasing. The CO2 alarmists have lost.
Also saying that burning fossil fuels upsets some carbon cycle is total nonsense. Nature didn’t expect some carbon to be sequestered and never be used again. Heck plate tectonics would have eventually gobbled up that carbon and then spit it back out.
Joe is another person who would benefit from watching the results and interviews with Richard Muller.
Lol! @ hrun- Joe does fine with reality which says that CO2 concentrations are rising but temperatures are not and all the rise in temperature can be attributed to natural and not manmade, causes.
Yes, Joe, yes. You are right, Muller, the climate skeptic with his team (including a noble prize winner in physics) is wrong, stupid, deluded, … This is clearly so obvious that you can see it without any funding or relevant training from just looking at a few websites, yet they failed to spot it.
Joe
Did you read my #74? The relevant paragraph (with personal comments removed and typos corrected) is:
The rate of increase of the average surface level temperature has slowed – not stopped. However, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting so the heat must be going somewhere. The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperature increase in line with increased energy. Other indications of global warming such as arctic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue. 2014 was the warmest year on record so this welcome hiatus may unfortunately be coming to an end.
But I suspect you are just not interested in learning the truth – only in winning the argument.
Gee, I HOPE the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. Where is it going? It is absorbed by by the earth and living organisms. 2014 was warmer in some regions but not in others. Sea ice is growing with the Antarctic ice being thicker than thought.
The Great Pause Lengthens
You people act as if the other side doesn’t have any scientists nor science to support our claims. Pathetic…
The earth isn’t warming, it’s just absorbing energy?
Biomass is a bit of a long shot too, photosynthesis accounts for a few percent of incoming energy, and that energy is used by plants and heterotrophs so it’s hard to see how it could be a store explaining earth’s energy imbalance.
(Why is it that the insults so frequently accompany the worst arguments here…)
Yes, Joe, yes. You go on about your greast pause and great scientists. In the meantime we just recorded the hottest year of the instrument record and the four hottest years of the recent era were in the last ten years or so.
And yes, ‘your side’ may have some scientist, even though it has predominately laymen and not actual climate scientist. But what is actually lacking on ‘your side’ are actual facts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
MarkF:
You’ve given the argument away. So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor.
Now, why aren’t we talking about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Because everyone knows that it fluctuates so wildly, and that cloud formations affect surface temperatures of water quite directly, something that all of the CO2 in the world won’t affect.
So, IOW, the “warming” is all about water vapor, but we don’t want to talk about water vapor because then no one would take us seriously. So, instead, we’ll talk about CO2 and then fool the taxpayers (remember Jonathan Gruber, the American taxpayers are stupid) into giving huge conglomerates huge amounts of tax dollars. It’s called crony capitalism.
What is the percentage of water vapor, H2O, in the atmosphere. And isn’t H2O 17 to 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas?
A little perspective is always good. No?
Yes, but everyone knows that there are problems with surface temperatures and the way they’re recorded. (Why don’t you do a study correlating the number of central heating and air conditioners sold in a calendar year, and the rise in surface temperatures. I suspect they would correlate quite well)
Meanwhile, satellite temperature recordings–a much more reliable barometer—show that temperature rise has stopped. The average temperature in 2014 is about the same as in 1997.
If this weren’t the case—IOW, let’s say that ALL the energy the earth received from the Sun were radiated outwards, well, the earth would quickly freeze to death. It seems to me that if the earth came out of an Ice Age just 10 or 11,000 years ago, that we would, at the very least, expect the earth to be emitting LESS than it receives. Now this has been going on for 10,000 years. And those measurements you’re talking about—how long have they been taking them? 30 years?
Perspective.
Typical Darwinian tactic—run and hide.
So the computer models have been wrong for over 17 years, but that’s just because climate fluctuates, you know. Or maybe the models are wrong. Should we bet trillions of dollars on models that so far appear not to be able to predict climate?
I’ve seen reports in the press that contradict both of those claims. Antartic Ice accumulation is higher than ever recorded. That’s part of the “globe” too. How do you explain this growth in ice? CO2?
Based on surface temperatures? Based on rigged data? (Yes, this has been demonstrated to have happened as with the Hockey Stick nonsense)
I was born in 1950. In the late 50’s, and early 60’s, Chicago and New York were cold and snowy—just like they were last year and are this year. The weather patterns remind me of the 1950’s—as in, weather is cyclical.
Was that meant to be a serious question? You should have asked: Do you think climate scientists haven’t taken magmatic activity into SUFFICIENT account? Then I would have answered: No.
Really? I said that I found a site where it said that the estimate of underwater volcanoes was 300,000. Then in response to your notion of ‘increased’ warming, I said this: Or, as I said above, the magma becomes hotter via a change in earth’s core—something that recently has been documented to have happened. If each of the same number of volcanoes get slightly hotter, there is more heat being produced. This is straightforward. I don’t know how you got this muddled.
The total absorption of plants, land, and oceans is 880 gigatons per year. Man-made CO2 is 28 gigatons. 40% of the CO2 is absorbed. So, out of the 880 gigatons of CO2 that circulates each year, we’re less than 3% of that.
You mention ‘accumulation.’ But hasn’t the CO2 been ‘accumulating’ for the past 17 years. And now we’re setting records for cold all over the place? The satellite temperatures, if you do a linear regression, are absolutely level over these past 17 years. So what happened to ’cause and effect’?
Isn’t this being rather smug?
You have computer models that haven’t predicted actual temperatures. You have ‘climate change’ conferences cancelled because of cold. You have ice aggregating in Antarctica. Cold records are being set which take us back to the 1800’s. And the list goes on.
And your response is: “Well, it is clear that you don’t understand the science behind all of this.”
What about the fudged hockey stick data, the emails and tactics used to cover all of that up? I guess you just hand-wave that away by saying: “and bodies such as the IPCC have been sucked into the politics and made rash and silly statements.”
As Twain said, “There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.” Let’s amend: “There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then climate models.”
PaV: So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor.
That is not correct. CO2 warming leads to increased atmospheric water vapor which amplifies the warming effect of CO2.
PaV: Now, why aren’t we talking about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?
Climate scientists do. Each doubling of CO2 will directly increase global temperatures about 1°C. The amplification due to water vapor is called climate sensitivity and is estimated by a number of empirical studies to be 2-4°C.
PaV: Yes, but everyone knows that there are problems with surface temperatures and the way they’re recorded.
Yes, they do. Historical temperature records weren’t recorded for the purposes of climate research, but for local weather forecasting. As such, they are incomplete and subject to discontinuities. The original climate studies pieced this data together manually from hundreds of sources. Nowadays, the data is subject to advanced statistical analysis.
PaV: So the computer models have been wrong for over 17 years, but that’s just because climate fluctuates, you know.
The overall heat is increasing, but how it distributes through the system is chaotic. Currently, most of the heat is being absorbed by the oceans. Nonetheless, 2014 was the warmest year on record.
PaV: Antartic Ice accumulation is higher than ever recorded.
Antartic sea ice extent has increased due to changes in wind patterns and surface melt. However, total Antartic ice has decreased substantially, as has Arctic ice,.
PaV: Based on surface temperatures?
Yes. Ocean heat content is also rising.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3.....000myr.png
PaV: Based on rigged data?
No. Independent analysis of the data has repeatedly supported the trend.
Nope. CO2 is a greenhouse gas in its own right. Any increase in temp will amplified by the water vapour feedback, so your nutty stories about vulcanism are subject to the same (faulty) argument you are making with regard CO2-driven warming.
The rest just appears to be even more muddled that normal, which gets me back to the eariler unanswered question:
Are there other fields of science that you think are populated almost entirely by idiots are liars? Or just these two politically and religiously contentious subjects?
Naomi Oreskes is ignoring the well established fact that we can’t really know whether experimental findings that have passed the bar of less than 5 percent probability really did. If 20 scientists do the same study, it is likely that at least one will appear to be significant at that level even if there is no real effect at all. But journals generally limit publications to those showing statistical significance so the failed studies may never be heard of.
Without knowing how many times similar studies have failed to produce significance, it is very difficult to know what the real probability of finding the result is. And since journals seldom publish replication study results, there is little incentive to follow up on published results whose significance has been overestimated.
For more on these issues, including work to deal with the problem, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/br.....llocation/ and the embedded links.
Pav
This is getting to be a waste of time – but one last attempt.
As others have tried to explain to you, CO2 (and other gases such as methane and CFCs) are secondary in the sense that they contribute less to the greenhouse effect at any given moment. But they are primary in that they are independent long term variables that control to a large extent the average amount of water vapour (which as you say fluctuates in the short term). Here is one of many explanations.
A little perspective is good if it is relevant. See above.
There then follow a lot comments disputing the temperature record. The simplest way round this is for you to read what sceptic Richard Muller wrote following BEST temperature project (as other commentators above have pointed out).
To quote:
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause
If this weren’t the case—IOW, let’s say that ALL the energy the earth received from the Sun were radiated outwards, well, the earth would quickly freeze to death. It seems to me that if the earth came out of an Ice Age just 10 or 11,000 years ago, that we would, at the very least, expect the earth to be emitting LESS than it receives. Now this has been going on for 10,000 years. And those measurements you’re talking about—how long have they been taking them? 30 years?
A few other points:
Is that your way of saying that it is not true and actually the earth is a simple system?
See Zacherial’s #90. Interesting that you use reports you have seen in the press to keep up to date.
How do you know? Because you have more knowledge and expertise than they have?
So what? Why do you keep bringing up this totally irrelevant figure? Actually we contribute about 2% of the total flow of carbon between biomass, atmosphere and ocean. But our flow is addition to what is already there while the others are in balance. What matters is how much is accumulating in the atmosphere. We measure that directly and it has increased from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm over the last 50 years. It is also almost certain that this is anthropogenic because of the balance of isotopes.
This takes us back to Richard Muller.
RalphDavidWestfall #92
I agree that this is one of the several problems with confidence intervals and indeed classical hypothesis testing in general. This would apply whatever standard we set – 99%, 95%, or 90%. I don’t think it affects Oreskes main argument which is that whatever standard of certainty we set before accepting that global warming is happening we need to take into account:
* A priori reasons for believing it to be true.
* The relative costs of type 1 and type 2 errors.
Actually climate science seems to me to be less prone to this particular problem than most sciences. We don’t run multiple experiments with the earth’s climate and select from them. We only have the one.
Well the instruments have only been around for a few decades, so the sample size is rather small. Also, as I have said and can prove, some regions warmed while other regions cooled. If you were right then ALL regions should be warming, but they are not.
Also the total “warming” is still under 2 degrees F for the past 100+ years. And back then it was cooler than usual.
The facts? Humans prosper during warmer times. Plants also prosper during warmer times. There isn’t any evidence for thermal runaway for the earth.
CO2 is measured in parts per MILLION and if our climate is that sensitive then we have found ANOTHER instance of fine tuning. Antarctic sea ice is thicker than previously thought.
Weather patterns are changing but they change, not because of man-made CO2, but due to other factors like precession and orbit. When the clean-air acts of the 70s and 80s kicked in the cleaner air allowed more of the sun’s radiations to reach the surface and heat the earth.
This is so puzzling to me. There are climate researchers who studied the relevant science, they have the relevant schooling, and they then spent multiple months or even years writing up publications on this.
Yet, based on …(?) PaV dismisses them and KNOWS that they did not take magma activity into account SUFFICIENTLY.
This is a weird combination of the Dunning Kruger effect and hyperskepticism coupled with a very selective argument from (perceived) authority. On the face of it this is simply bizarre. Even more so since PaV is so convinced that he is actually right.
Polar ice sheets, mass over time
http://nca2014.globalchange.go.....oss-hi.jpg
Joe writes:
Yes, Joe, yes. Again you must be the authority on this whole subject because you know details that are unknown to the scores of climate researchers that actually are trained in this topic, know the relevant literature, and work with it day in and day out.
The instrumental temperature record is commonly considered to date back to about 1850. While you can claim that ~165 years are only ‘a few decades’ this still means that the four hottest years of the last one and a half centuries occurred in about the last ten years. And over this period the warming trend is uncontroversial to most.
No, if I (actually the relevant climate researchers) were right than the global temperature should be rising over a long period of time couple with local and temporal fluctuations.
And the rest of the post again is just full of tropes that imply that all the climate researchers are either dishonest or incompetent.
And that brings us back to the question at the beginning: Are there any other scientific fields that evolution and climate change that accumulated this immense number of liars or frauds capable of perpetrating this hoax?
There isn’t any such thing as a “global temperature”. There isn’t any such thing as a “global anomaly”. Back in the 19th century how many reliable stations were there? Even now there are stations in areas that are conducive to false data.
Yes humans have created urban heat islands. Yes human activity has had an impact. CO2 is NOT the problem.
LoL! I could say the same thing using natural warming as my hypothesis.
The climate changes. That is what it does and will do so regardless of us. We have always prospered when it was warmer. I will take the warmth now because I am sure another ice age is coming- it always does.
As for “evolution”, yes there is plenty of evidence for it. However there isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but produce disease and deformities. And then there is cosmology.
And the next set of tropes. Muller specifically looked at the temperature sampling and errors due to heat island. He and his BEST team confirmed that these errors are readily corrected for in the datasets.
And the next trope right here.
And the next.
Finally something new.
So we now have evolution, climate science, and cosmology. I think overall the medical field (especially things like prenatal care, vaccines, and cancer treatments) should be added to the list as well.
Weather drives climate and we can’t predict the long range weather correctly. Droughts and floods can be averted via known methods and available technology. We should be using the warm period to grow and stockpile food.
hrun lumps evolution with climate change and we know that unguided evolution is nonsense…
Of course I lump them together. That was the point of the question.
Is the same true for cosmology and much of the medical field?
hrun- People question evolutionism because it is untestable nonsense. Are you saying that climate change is also untestable nonsense?
The medical field is hampered by evolutionism. Cosmology is hampered by materialism.
Joe, it is not a matter for what I am saying.
WD400 asked:
You are providing answers to this question.
It’s just an appearance of guided climate change. Nature is just doing her thing. Her lol.