Skip to main content

Is global warming a hoax? Catholic Online interviews a skeptic Comments

Over the past two weeks, Catholic Online had the opportunity to interview Global Warming skeptic and author, Dr. Mark Hendrickson who is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 49 Comments

  1. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    Crystal, just like Richard the cartoon also ignores the scientific literature. The cartoon dude rips off a modge-podge of denialist talking points that are so well-worn, many people have written rebuttals with citations to real-world scientific papers that rebut those talking points. For just one example, the cartoon asserts that the % of CO2 from humans is moot compared to the amount from natural sources. You can read either a basic-science or intermediate-science rebuttal of this argument, based on published peer reviewed research papers, right here....
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    Any *honest* skeptic studies the other sides' arguments well enough to accurately repeat the other sides' arguments whether or not they agree. Genuine skeptics take that step before taking a position. And so regarding the talking points in the cartoon,

    If God gave us intellect and education, you have a choice.

    (Option A) To use those gifts to perform careful
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
    regarding the rebuttal arguments based on peer-reviewed scientific research papers at
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    and only THEN taking a position

    (Option B) Do what the cartoon creators hope you do, which is to spit on those gifts and instead just shoot from the hip with
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

    How to choose? See Matt 25:14-30
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25

  2. Crystalbal30
    1 year ago

    I would really like to know what his responses to this youtube video entitled "the global warming hoax explained for Dummies" would be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

  3. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Quote: Steve 1 week ago
    "Global warming doubters do not wish to listen and will not hear. They are kin to Flat Earthers and folks that claim the moon landings were faked. This rag appears to relish purveying gibberish."

    Quote: Richard C. Savage 6 days ago
    "I see the obnoxiously self-important, such as Ed and Steve, have favored us with their wit and wisdom."
    I went on to comment on the absense of the Scientific Method in the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

    Steve Elfelt responded, claiming I was beating HIM on the head...not someone else.
    Quote:" RIchard's sardonic attempt to club me on the head with the scientific method..."
    It certainly looks like Steve Elfelt considered my response to Steve (and Jim) was addressed to him.

    In the meantime, Steve Elfelt continues to avoid the major point I raised: real science is based on the use of the Scientific Method. People like Hansen, Trenberth, Michael Mann don't use the scientific method, which requires consideration of ALL hypotheses and and honest attempts to falsify the hypotheses. Instead, they cling doggedly to a single claim that a trace gas, absorbing in a small (5%) of the Earth's emission spectrum, will lead to catastrophic climate change, and attempt to prove it true. Meanwhile, more and more honest science points to solar changes as a climate modulator.

    Steve's latest response is the usual diversionary tactic of warmers: "Look over there, the jet steam is doing something."

    The jet stream is an integrated response to temperature contrast through the depth of the troposphere. Ocean level ice cover has no effect on it, and the current Arctic Ocean ice cover is perfectly normal (in fact, slightly above average). The University of Illinois, among many, publishes data on it at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html



  4. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    Richard, you appear to only be reading only what you want to hear.

    Example 1) How about reviewing these very comments to check whether I ever uttered the phrase "flat landers" ?

    Example 2) Like you did in grad school how about listening to a presentation by a leading researcher - this one from Rutgers - talk about their work? I already gave you the link to this jetstream talk. I don't care if you blow me off.... but I do think you owe it to the rest of us to rebut Dr. Francis' explanation of what's happening to the jetstream as the ice comes off the arctic ocean, basing your own remarks on the peer reviewed professional literature. Here's that link again.
    http://youtu.be/_nzwJg4Ebzo

    I don't particularly care if you falsely say I uttered phrases like "flat landers". But I do care when you slander others (climate scientists) with claims based on only a small slice of the info, and without supporting those claims with the recent professional literature.

    Steve Elfelt





  5. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    I'm beginning to wonder what's going on here, and what game Mr. Connolly is playing.

    I notice there is an article from Prof John Abraham, a notorious alarmist, commenting on Prof Hendrickson's ill-chosen remarks. It doesn't appear here, with the other comments. It's a separate article, by itself.

    First, Mr. Connolly prints an interview with a man who, whatever his other qualifications, has no competence in the subject of climatology.

    Then he permits various equally unqualified people to point out that Hendrickson is unqualified - as if that proves that Hendrickson's reservations about manmade global warming are invalid.

    Then, not in the mainstream of comments here, he prints Abraham's "refutation" of the incompetent Hendrickson elsewhere.

    I think you're being dishonest, Mr. Connolly. You're pushing the catastrophic global warming lie. Am I wrong?

    I posted a response to some comments on this blog an hour or so ago. They haven't appeared. If I respond to Prof Abraham, will I also be censored?

  6. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Thank you for coming back, Steve;I'm sure Mr. Connolloy, who is attempting to present this debate to fellow Catholics, appreciates a reasonable discussion for the benefit of all.

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your previous contribution was “...They are kin to Flat Earthers and folks that claim the moon landings were faked. This rag appears to relish purveying gibberish.” Not very flattering to Mr. Connolly nor to me. “Do unto other as you would wish...” You've heard that, right Steve?

    Yes Steve, I really am a scientist. You can google my name and dissertation topic at:

    Richard C. Savage: "Transfer of thermal microwaves through hydrometeors"

    I think you'll find several references; the later ones relate to the microwave sensor that flies on the DMSP meteorological satellites. I wrote the specifications for it, and led the team of engineers that wrote the processing software. In addition, I've been a working meteorologist – i.e., a forecaster. YOU?

    Now, let's get back to the subject – radiative transfer, and the effect of trace amounts of CO2 on atmospheric temperature. Since my dissertation was published in 1976, you can safely assume I was a graduate student (Wisconsin-Madison) in 1973-1976. The foremost climatologist in the world was Reid Bryson, a professor at W-M; I used to atttend his lectures. He used to point out the window (a Northwest corner classroom) toward Springfield Hill, the highest point in Dane County, and solemnly proclaim “...twenty thousand years ago, the glaciers stopped right out there.” I got a big laugh out of it, since I lived in the only house on top of Springfield Hill. I verified Bryson's statement in the Summer of 1974, when I had to dig postholes for a fence to contain our new litter of puppies. Yes, I will guarantee Springfield Hill is a glacial till, the place the glacier, pushing a pile of stones, stopped.

    Steve, you can quote all the political blogs (thinkprogress, Guardian, skepticalscience) you want. I was there. I heard Bryson, and Murray Mitchell, the NOAA Climate chief. Global COOLING, not warming, caused by human aerosol emissions, was their concern. By 2008, Bryson was convinced CO2-caused warming was nonsense.

    In addition, I was a USAF officer, with security clearances. In 1972, the US was victimized by “The Great Grain Robbery”, when the USSR wheat crop failed for the 33rd time in a row. The US was foolish enough to sell them massive amounts of our wheat, resulting in a major price rise of bread on US markets. Why do you suppose I investigated radiative transfer and microwaves? Microwaves, like radar, can see raindrops inside clouds. The Russian grain crop failure was due to a lack of rain. My dissertation had a specific military objective: to be able to see rain clouds and soil moisture over land, and tropical storms (another military mission) over the oceans.

    Unknown to me at the time, but unclassified now, the CIA was paying one of the W-M professors for a study to tell them what global cooling would do to world food production and political unrest. In case you've forgotten, or never knew, thousand of people, and hundreds of thousands of animals, died in 1973-1975 in the Sahel region of Africa, when the rains didn't come. As Casey said, you can look it up. Why don't you? You might learn something.

    I'll just ignore your stupid remarks about the jet stream. I'm a meteorologist, Steve, and also a pilot. Invoking the magic word “jet steam” isn't an argument. What does your perceived change of the jet prove?

    Finally, I can't begin to understand why Steve thinks quoting the Scientific Method amounts to “club me on the head.” Scientific Method is just the rules of the game. If Steve doesn't understand the rules – as he apparently doesn't – he should please get off the court.

    And, let's all keep our eye on the ball. Does some amount – unspecified – of global warming harm the poor of Africa and South America? Or does our misguided effort to turn 40% of the American corn crop into ethanol, and prevent Third World countries from building electricity generation plants harm them far, far more?

    It's an ethical question. This is a Catholic magazine. WWJD?

    Richard

  7. Hanna
    1 year ago

    What are Marshall Connelly's credentials as a scientist?
    Reporters report.

    Perhaps Mr. Connelly could interview a renowned atmospheric scientist:
    Richard Lindzen (MIT) for scientific information.

  8. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    RIchard's sardonic attempt to club me on the head with the scientific method is based on his abandonment of it. In particular, Richard bears false witness to the scientific literature and turns a blind eye to the process of hypothesis-and-observation.

    In the 60-70s there was a debate in the *professional* literature but only one side of the debate appeared in the pop media. Since you claim, Richard, to have scientific expertise I will assume you know what the *professional* literature said about both sides of the debate and are choosing to bear false witness by only repeating the pop media story so as to suppress the dominant *professional* story - the assessment by the most scientists at the time was warming!
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

    Another part of the scientific method is to project trends, and then match observations to the projections. One example is Hansen's 1980-ish projections
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/08/27/203015/right-for-27-years-1981-hansen-study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels/

    and another example ((((IN VIDEO AT http://youtu.be/_nzwJg4Ebzo)))) is that global warming science has long predicted changes in the jetstream and we are now seeing those very changes (though much sooner than expected).

    Bear in mind the jetstream is a major driver of weather, and determines what crops we can grow where. Mess it up, and the results are predictable. Many gov'ts fell in Arab Spring after the crop failure in Russia in 2010.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies

    But hey..... you wanna just repeat talking points without checking what the OPPONENTS of those talking points have to say in rebuttal, have at it. But that's not very scientific, is it?


    In ancient Egypt, Joseph stored the excess harvest for the famine ahead. Where is he when we need him?

    But I suppose if Richard is going to ignore the full spectrum of the professional literature and ignore the record of predictions/observations, he probably wouldn't listen to Joseph either.

    Richard, I will be interested in your next remarks when you have a claim, based on the scientific literature, that has not already been debunked with the scientific literature in this list of already-debunked claims:
    http;//www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



    If you can actually come up with a new one, you should be on the Koch brother's payroll.

  9. mkc
    1 year ago

    A simple question asked by the former head of NASA, Dr. Griffin (who just happens to have 5 PhDs, so I suppose that qualifies him as a scientist): "What is the right temperature?"
    What may be right for Africa may not be right for Russia!

    I would like to add a corollary to his question: "and who will decide?" Think about that!! I am sure we can trust that illustrious institution, the UN / s!

  10. Tom
    1 year ago

    Thanks Marsh. Dr. Hendrickson seems to be a smart chap. I agree with him and I have a 5th grade education.

    To the fellow asking if the church still burns heretics at the stake. The church stopped this practice years ago as it was one of the major causes of medieval global warming, undoubtedly the cause of the little ice age.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Revelation 18:1-2, 21-23; 19:1-3, 9
After this, I saw another angel come down from heaven, with ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 100:2, 3, 4, 5
serve Yahweh with gladness, come into his presence with songs ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 21:20-28
'When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you must ... Read More

Saint of the Day

November 27 Saint of the Day

St. James Intercisus
November 27: James was a favorite of King Yezdigerd I of Persia and a ... Read More