Check out Cornwall Alliance...

Out of all possible drivers of global warming, only increasing carbon dioxide will cause warming of the surface and lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling of the middle atmosphere (stratosphere). Measurements over past decades indicate that the surface and lower atmosphere is warming and that the middle atmosphere is cooling. Only carbon dioxide (produced by the burning of fossil fuels) will produce this pattern.

>>The perspective of the Cornwall Alliance on climate change is not based on sound science.

Well, now...

Two responses. First, the book Cornwall Alliance has put out is authored by good scientists with credentials in the disciplines related to global warming, so on what basis do you say they lack "sound science?" Have they faked their credentials? Are they quacks? Are they motivated by a desire for excoriation by their peers? Are they in the throes of some sort of scholarly masochism?

I've watched "sound science" for a lifetime and can't tell you how often it's a giggling excitement over fashion (HT to GK). You may be young and eager and naive so I won't fault you. I'll simply ask you to watch for a few decades and then start speaking when you know how political purportedly "hard science" is. And good scientists will be the first to agree with this. Mind you, I said "good scientists."

Second, look at what you actually wrote, brother:

>>The perspective of the Cornwall Alliance on climate change is not based on sound science. There is very strong evidence indicating that recent warming is not natural, and the possibilty of dangerous alterations to Earth's climate system cannot be ruled out.

This statement is filled with equivocation. Start with the work "perspective." Then "not natural," whatever that means. Did the Creator not make the world to react as it does to the addition of carbon? So then, in fact it is natural, right? Maybe you meant "beneficial?" But I suspect your reason for writing "not natural" is that your thinking has been turned from Scripture by those promoting themselves through global warming who all view man as the problem and fewer men living smaller and quieter as the solution. Thus "anthropogenic" as if that says it all. "Oh, it's caused by man! Must be bad!"

But of course, man is not bad in that sense. Man is good. Man invents. Man is creative. Man lives and breathes and raises cows for milk, thus contributing a huge amount of methane to the atmosphere.

Then your "possibility" that "cannot be ruled out." Do you know how unlimited are the Calamity Jane possibilities that can't be ruled out? Is this really what science has come to?

Can't we for a second remember all the fertility and exploding resources God has put in man's mind and heart, and in this green Earth He placed under our feet?

Sure, global warming might be true. But likely not. It's Al Gore's thing and Al Gore's all about self-promotion. And what better way to promote ourselves than running around yelling "Wolf! Wolf!" instead of "Judgment is coming! He has fixed a day when He will judge all men by His Annointed One! Turn and repent! Today, before it's too late!"

Love,

David and Tim,

My assessment that the Cornwall Alliance perspective is not based on sound science is based on personal knowledge and expertise. Since 1994 I have published 36 papers on topics related to climate change. I'm not aware of the book to which you refer, so I can't comment on credentials. I have previously interacted with at least one scientist associated with the Cornwall Alliance, and I find his arguments to be weak and poorly supported by the evidence. See comment #3 for one reason I think this way.

It's not clear to me why you mention excoriation by peers and scholarly masochism since disagreement with the mainstream is evidence only for the fact that one does not value approval by wider society above all else. It provides no indication regarding whether one's views are correct or not.

I do agree that fashion and politics come into science, but in this case, I think the fashion and politics are on the part of anthropogenic global warming skepticism.

David and Tim,

I appreciate your pastoral concern for my soul. I don't think anthropogenic = bad, but I do think there is strong evidence that man's activities are changing the climate system and that the detrimental effects will outweigh the beneficial effects. Regarding "dangerous alteration", I meant especially detrimental effects with some basis in known science, not unlimited speculative Calamity Jane possibilities.

Scientific concern about global warming was there before Al Gore came along and will continue after Al Gore is gone. In the Apostle Paul's time there were some hucksters who jumped on the bandwagon and started peddling the gospel, but that didn't mean the gospel that Paul preached wasn't true.

Is concern about global warming as important as the gospel message and warning of the final judgment? Not at all. But it's not an either/or thing.

BTW, check out how lucrative AGW science is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/

Annual income/profitability are part of the evidence to be weighed in reviewing the AGW advocacy of NASA's James Hansen as they're part of the evidence to be weighed in reviewing John MacArthur's joining with the feminist revisions of Scripture.

Which is to say Jesus warned us against the deceitfulness of wealth.

Love,

>> Annual income/profitability are part of the evidence to be weighed in reviewing the AGW advocacy of NASA's James Hansen as they're part of the evidence to be weighed in reviewing John MacArthur's joining with the feminist revisions of Scripture.

>> Which is to say Jesus warned us against the deceitfulness of wealth.

For the record, I have never received any financial benefit for AGW advocacy, nor have 99% of my colleagues.

>>I have no blog. The website URL I listed (meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris) is my workplace webpage that provides research and teaching material for colleagues and students. I am not aware of anything on meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris which is "filled with ridicule" and uses "deniers" as a "normal name" for people who disagree with AGW. Please substantiate that I am responsible for such material or retract your statement.

Thank you for the correction, Dr. Norris. Please see my retraction beginning with the upper case "NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY" in comment number 10 above.

Again down here, I apologize for attributing to you blog content you had nothing to do with. Thank you for your graciousness in correcting me.

Love,

>> Does worldview really have no impact on you and your AGW narrators?

From what I've seen among my fellow scientists working in this area, I'd say that worldview has no substantive impact for 90% of them.

Regarding myself, I'll let you judge. I am a member of what is probably the most conservative church in the presbytery (PCA) in terms of theology and worship. I never vote Democrat and sometimes reluctantly vote Republican. I have four children now and will have more in the future should the Lord provide. We homeschool. Do you think this background predisposes me to think AGW is real and likely to be a problem?

Where worldview comes more into play is among those who are not working on the science. Since they lack technical expertise, they are more inclined to judge according to ideology. Are the environmentalists who think mankind is a blight on the planet predisposed to believe the most lurid AGW scenarios? Certainly. Are the Cornwall Alliance members and the like predisposed to think AGW is not real? I think yes. From what I've seen, many have an ideological preference for small government (as do I), but AGW isn't a problem that can be solved by small government, and it is easier to believe that AGW is not real than admit small government can't deal with everything.

>>Just because there are some pastors out there who are quite rich doesn't mean the gospel message is false.

I have never said money falsifies. Rather, I've reminded us of Jesus' warning that riches deceive us and I've pointed out that money easily corrupts a man's integrity. To Christians, this should be obvious. But I fear fewer and fewer believers demonstrate any ability to be self-critical.

Love,

>> testifying to the sin of the Science Sanhedrin.

I don't know what you mean by "the sin of the Science Sanhedrin". Can you explain?

>> I mention them because we should listen more carefully to the arguments of those whose scholarly peers are vitriolic in opposing them. If a man argues a position he knows will cause his colleagues to bare their fangs, jeopardizing his tenure and income, I'm inclined to give him a more careful hearing because of his self-sacrifice. He may be a fool, but he may be a prophet. The mob is often wrong and this is as true of scientists talking among themselves as the Israelites in the Wilderness of Zin talking among themselves.

99 doctors say doing X is bad for your health. One doctor says doing X is fine. Could the 99 be following a medical fad? Yes. Could the one be a crank? Yes. Which do you think is more likely? Are you going to do X?

I've listened to the arguments of the anti-AGW scientists, and I've found them to be not credible. There are people with whom I disagree but recognize that they have some good arguments on their side. Anti-AGW does not rise to that level. My impression is that anti-AGW scientists have decided that AGW is not real as a matter of principle and selectively choose (weak) data to support their position. My perspective is to look at the data first and then decide whether AGW is real or not. So far the balance of data strongly indicate that AGW is real, so that's what I've gone with. If new data come along that convincingly show otherwise, then I'll change my mind.

Why are scholarly peers so vitriolic in opposing anti-AGW scientists? Imagine you have someone in your church who has certain unsound views that he likes to promote at every opportunity. You've spent many times going through Scripture with him explaining why he is wrong, but he won't receive it. He considers himself to be a latter-day Martin Luther fighting against a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Some people outside your church like what he says and give him encouragement and assistance because it furthers their goals. They insinuate that your views are really driven by cupidity rather than an sincere desire to follow biblical truth. Perhaps you will still respond graciously, but are you surprised if those who don't know Christ respond with vitriol?

>> the Cornwall scientist with whom you've talked/corresponded in the past is Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at U. Alabama/Huntsville, lead scientist on the NASA Aqua Satellite remote sensing program that provides the 24/7 global temperature readings, highly honored by NASA for his work, so an appeal to your credentials or your blanket brush-off of his arguments won't work.

Since you mention Roy by name, I hope he will show up here to represent himself. I freely acknowledge Roy's expertise in microwave remote sensing, though I will mention that the dataset he created with John Christy had several substantial methodological errors that were not corrected until others pointed them out. More recently Roy has done work on clouds, which have been a long-time specialty of mine, so if comes to credentials, I will assert mine are greater on that topic.

>> Actual refutation of the arguments is what's necessary.

According to my recollection, here is how things stood the last time we communicated. Both Roy and I agreed on the following three points:

1) CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity

2) Basic physics indicates increased CO2 will act to warm the surface of the Earth

3) Earth's surface has been warming recently

For me (and most everyone else), these three points are sufficient demonstrate that AGW is real.

Roy added two more items:

4) Clouds have changed to cancel out the warming produced by increasing CO2

5) Some other factor (the Sun, if I recall correctly) has produced the observed warming

Since (4) and (5) are extras that go beyond the simplest plausible explanation for warming, I think the onus is on Roy to demonstrate their validity. And Roy hasn't provided any convincing evidence that clouds have changed to cancel out the warming produced by CO2. Some other people have pointed out shortcomings of his work on clouds, and I'm not aware of anyone working in the area that has agreed with his conclusions. I don't know what you would consider refutation. Getting Roy to change his mind?

>>> I'll assume catastrophic means something substantially worse than "detrimental effects outweigh beneficial effects". If so, I've not held a view that CAGW is the most likely outcome...

Mr. Norris,

From what you've said it sounds like the research you do is to advance our understanding of how God's climate systems work, and how man's behavior may affect them -- specifically how clouds figure into that, and that you are not currently on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming bandwagon. While there is evidence that man's behavior *does* affect the climate, it's at the level of "further study would be wise" rather than "SOUND THE ALARM!"

Am I close so far?

Studying to understand God's world and our place in it is good. Further study and informed policy decisions based on that study, good. What I am against is coercive policies now based on ideas of *catastrophic* AGM that are far from settled fact.

Mr. Norris, are you too "against coercive policies now based on ideas of *catastrophic* AGM that are far from settled fact"? Perhaps we are not as far apart as I thought.

Not that The Register is a good source, generally speaking, but I just ran across this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/16/himalayan_karakoram_glaciers_gaining_ice/

The study it is reporting explains that the glaciers in the Himalayas have actually been growing slightly over the past decade. Odd, that.

Here is the link to the actual study (must pay for access):
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1450.html