PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming - Religious Studies or Science



BlasterBates
4th January 2016, 14:19
As you would perhaps inevitably expect we have the first paper on Global Warming to appear in a Journal of Religious Studies.

New Paper By Renowned Sea Level Expert Nils-Axel Mörner, Calls AGW A “New Religion” Built On “False Premises.” (http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/03/new-paper-by-renowned-sea-level-expert-nils-axel-morner-calls-agw-a-new-religion-built-on-false-premises/#sthash.JiySUU6n.dpbs)

Is it essentially a theological debate ?

WTFH
4th January 2016, 14:24
You know that the "renown expert" is renown only for repeating false claims that he makes every few years?


The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover | Mark Lynas and George Monbiot | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims)




"Nelson's "find" is a man some of us found years ago and have seen as a source of wild entertainment ever since. He's called Nils-Axel Mörner, and among his claims to fame are that he possesses paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod (http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/sunday-telegraph-promotes-water-divining-enthusiast-as-an-authority-on-global-warming), and that he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" (http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/03/lind_morner_still_mucking_arou.php) in Sweden."

BlasterBates
4th January 2016, 14:59
He's a heretic.

WTFH
4th January 2016, 15:00
He's a lunatic.




FTFY

pjclarke
4th January 2016, 15:10
You know that the "renown expert" is renown only for repeating false claims that he makes every few years?

And he is publishing in Volume 1, Issue 1 of an online-only pay-to-publish 'journal'.

Big Hmmmmmmm.

Update: Morner's article is Article ID JBL-1-001.pdf, residing at URL http://crescopublications.org/jbl/JBL-1-001.pdf

There is no JBL-1-002.pdf (so far). So it looks like Morner is their only author, though I see from the blog comments that Oliver 'the sun is made of iron' Manuel may submit a manuscript. Probably from jail (http://journalistatheart.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple.html).

Personally with such a distinguished list of contributors, I predict a bright future for this journal.

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 15:25
my brother is a vicar, the main thrust of his logic (when he does not rely on faith) is that the world is so complicated, and I can't prove how it came about, so it must have been created.

A logical fallacy, of course.

Just like the eco-loons. 'we have no explanation for any of this, so it must be CO2'

DimPrawn
4th January 2016, 15:28
Just like the eco-loons. 'we cannot tax water vapour, the output of the Sun, natural changes to the oceans or volcanic activity, increases or decreases in animals or plants, so it must be CO2 from fossil fuels'

FTFY

BrilloPad
4th January 2016, 15:40
"Religious Studies" or "Science"

What is the difference?

BrilloPad
4th January 2016, 15:40
my brother is a vicar, the main thrust of his logic (when he does not rely on faith) is that the world is so complicated, and I can't prove how it came about, so it must have been created.

A logical fallacy, of course.


Indeed. Else faith does into come into it.

pjclarke
4th January 2016, 15:41
Personally with such a distinguished list of contributors, I predict a bright future for this journal.

Or maybe not. I see Cresco is on Jeff Beall's list of predatory publishers.

LIST OF PUBLISHERS | Scholarly Open Access (http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/)

Quality source, there, as ever.

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 15:44
He's doing ad homs against himself now

DimPrawn
4th January 2016, 15:47
"Religious Studies" or "Science"

What is the difference?

One has dirty minded Catholic girls, the other has dull geeks.

I took the Science course at Uni. :frown

DodgyAgent
4th January 2016, 15:57
One has dirty minded Catholic girls, the other has dull geeks.

I took the Science course at Uni. :frown

All the science I need to know is here 1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over In 2016 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/) :happy

LondonManc
4th January 2016, 15:59
Worst floods in Worcester happened in the 18th Century, before the coal-fired Armageddon began. Crazy stuff. It's people's failure to adapt to a changing world that's the issue. We're a virus wiping out the planet's natural resources then acting horrified when Mother Nature strikes back.

DodgyAgent
4th January 2016, 16:06
Worst floods in Worcester happened in the 18th Century, before the coal-fired Armageddon began. Crazy stuff. It's people's failure to adapt to a changing world that's the issue. We're a virus wiping out the planet's natural resources then acting horrified when Mother Nature strikes back.

is that the changing world that has always happened? The one where mankind has always adapted to?

LondonManc
4th January 2016, 16:09
is that the changing world that has always happened? The one where mankind has always adapted to?

We'd adapted until people insisted on labeling others. Changing climate is taking people out of their comfort bubbles and the precious ickle kittens don't like it.

SpontaneousOrder
4th January 2016, 16:09
Worst floods in Worcester happened in the 18th Century, before the coal-fired Armageddon began. Crazy stuff. It's people's failure to adapt to a changing world that's the issue. We're a virus wiping out the planet's natural resources then acting horrified when Mother Nature strikes back.

Technically they're our resources. Not the earth's.

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 16:10
All the science I need to know is here 1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over In 2016 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/) :happy

wow. Delingpole just called pj 'worthless', 'pure scum' and does not 'deserve the merest scintilla of respect'

fight fight fight

SpontaneousOrder
4th January 2016, 16:10
We'd adapted until people insisted on labeling others. Changing climate is taking people out of their comfort bubbles and the precious ickle kittens don't like it.

Climate is changeable by definition. It would be useful if you rephrased the assertion.

WTFH
4th January 2016, 16:16
Climate is changeable by definition. It would be useful if you rephrased the assertion.



It may be changeable by your definition, but to DA and others on here it doesn't change at all, never has, never will.


It's only socialists and scientists who say the climate changes.

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 16:18
It may be changeable by your definition, but to DA and others on here it doesn't change at all, never has, never will.


It's only socialists and scientists who say the climate changes.

can you lift up off your seat please. so I can hear you clearer

WTFH
4th January 2016, 16:21
can you lift up off your seat please. so I can hear you clearer



I'm not sitting on you.


Maybe if you took your head out of the sand your ears would be less blocked to concepts that don't fit your opinion.

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 16:23
I'm not sitting on you.


Maybe if you took your head out of the sand your ears would be less blocked to concepts that don't fit your opinion.

you say that it's only socialists and scientists who say the climate changes

I say you are speaking out of your @rse

LondonManc
4th January 2016, 16:23
Climate is changeable by definition. It would be useful if you rephrased the assertion.

I made no real assertion. It was more a stereotyping statement that people like their comfort bubbles these days.

DodgyAgent
4th January 2016, 16:33
wow. Delingpole just called pj 'worthless', 'pure scum' and does not 'deserve the merest scintilla of respect'

fight fight fight

He gets several mentions in fact:

1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over In 2016 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/)

Finally, a study by another amateur enthusiast, JWR Whitfield, examining the relationship between CO2 and climate on an even longer term scale (400,000 years plus).

This represents a fairly recent development in our understanding of climate. Back in 1998, for example, when Michael Mann et al presented their hugely influential paper “Observed Climate Variability & Change”, the ice-core data available to scientists went back only 100,000 years (thus covering only one of the planet’s glaciation periods). Since then, thanks to two enlarged time scale Antarctica ice cores – Vostok and Epica – we can go back much further, covering at least four Glacial (cold) and Interglacial (warm) periods.

Two key things become clear from this data. The first is that, on a longer-term scale, Earth’s climate has fluctuated far more dramatically than the puny and inconsequential 0.8 degrees C rise in global mean temperature we’ve experienced since 1850. And the second is that rises and falls in CO2 lag rises and falls in temperature: that is, it’s temperature which pushes CO2 levels, not the other way round.

Whitfield goes on to examine the influence of the sun and of the oceans on climate which, he demonstrates, is much stronger than the small-to-non-existent influence of the trace gas CO2.

Not that any of this stuff is new, of course. But it’s useful information to keep handy every time you come upon another of those of smug, sanctimonious types who has been taught by the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, HuffPo or whoever that “deniers” are motivated solely by money or ideology and have no scientific arguments to support their case.

Actually, this is a classic case of what psychologists call “projection”. The climate alarmists were abandoned by scientific reality long ago – and the only reason they keep on trying to prop up their bankrupt cause is either because it pays the mortgage or because it suits their left-liberal Weltanschauung – or both.

The good news for those on the sceptical side of the argument is that we won it long ago – as will become increasingly clear over the months and years.

The bad news is that there won’t be what our friend Greg Garrison likes to call on his WIBC talk radio show a “blue dress moment” where some killer scientific fact emerges that decides the issue once and for all.

That’s because the whole global warming scare isn’t really about “the science” and never was about “the science.” Always, but always, it has been about the cynical exploitation of mass crowd hysteria and about the sly manipulation by activists and crony capitalists of the political system in order to advance the cause of global governance.

None of the people involved in this scam deserve the merest scintilla of respect. They are pure scum. They have not a single redeeming quality and everything they do is worthless – as I shall not hesitate to remind them from now on.

It strikes me that in the past that I have been far too kind and generous to this bunch of parasites and tinpot tyrants. My New Year’s resolution is to take the gloves off and take the fight to the enemy.

LondonManc
4th January 2016, 16:35
another amateur enthusiast

Nuff said.

WTFH
4th January 2016, 16:42
you say that it's only socialists and scientists who say the climate changes

I say you are speaking out of your @rse



Um, it's DA who claims that, not me. You've taken a sentence out of context, perhaps due to me posting it poorly, sorry.

DodgyAgent
4th January 2016, 16:44
Um, it's DA who claims that, not me. You've taken a sentence out of context, perhaps due to me posting it poorly, sorry.

that is not what i said.

WTFH
4th January 2016, 16:48
that is not what i said.



You are right, you put a comma between socialist and scientist.


http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-9.html#post2190312 (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-9.html#post2190312)


But then again, that same thread calls you out for your post above, where you said:

" Two key things become clear from this data. The first is that, on a longer-term scale, Earth’s climate has fluctuated far more dramatically than the puny and inconsequential 0.8 degrees C rise in global mean temperature we’ve experienced since 1850. "


So, your source claims there is a 0.8C rise, but Blaster says it is 0.45C and that only those who accept climate change would say it is anything other than 0.45C:


http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-7.html#post2190164 (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-7.html#post2190164)

EternalOptimist
4th January 2016, 16:51
You are right, you put a comma between socialist and scientist.




http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-9.html#post2190312 (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/111415-hot-moist-9.html#post2190312)



oh dear. I have a grip here, is it yours ?
if it isn't, go and get one

pjclarke
4th January 2016, 16:51
Nuff said.


Avoid this professor, he's a nice enough guy, but shouldn't be teaching.

So says a reviewer on RateMyProfessor of Delingpole's other 'expert'. I agree.

SpontaneousOrder
4th January 2016, 18:43
It may be changeable by your definition, but to DA and others on here it doesn't change at all, never has, never will.


It's only socialists and scientists who say the climate changes.

DA has said on more than one occasion that he thinks the earth probably is warming. I don't recall him ever saying it never changes.

Bee
4th January 2016, 21:11
I don't believe in Global Warming, for me it's another conspiracy theory.
I believe the natural climate change cycles in million years