Apparently, being tattooed, shirtless, and generally unkempt is required for mafia membership
Zombie Rabbis gather on the beach at sundown. . .OY!
The priests of the Church of Global-Warming preach, "Don't believe your lying eyes!"
Eastern Potentate demands Papal submission
Maxims and sayings of St. Philip Neri (H/T: Patrick Madrid)
Global Warming does not always indicate literal warming. Sometimes it is evidenced by EXTREMES of every sort regarding climate.
ReplyDeleteI know you won't believe this. You may as well declare the earth is flat. It's a done deal, father.
Btw, I remember the incident Mr. Callohan referred to. There was someone who said something very rude and the "abused" person said, "Don't become a therapist. Just don't." And it went straight downhill from there.
I remember it and thought at the time it was a horrible "Lord of the Flies" kind of thing.
Do as you will. I'm sure you will not "hear."
I visit frequently but never have made a comment.
It's too weird. I just watch the train wrecks.
James [another one -- not Callohan]
James, I'm happy to say that the globe is warming...I'm happy to say that it isn't. What flat-out deny is that there is any sort of scientific consensus one way or the other. I understand the diff. btw weather and climate. Both are pretty much in constant flux. And those fluxes can be extreme. Nothing happening now with the weather or the climate is freakishly abnormal. We've only been keeping weather data for about 200 years. That's nothing in climatological time.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comment...I will need to see them. Commenters are responsible for their words. I censor inappropriate links, etc. I am always amused when oppositional commenters write to tell me how immature/biased/etc. I am...apparently not realizing that nothing they say would appear on this blog unless I allowed it.
James, also...I "hear" just fine. Refusing to agree is not a matter of not listening. I can "hear" and still disagree. The charge that those who disagree with you fail to listen to you is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteFr. Philip -- really, there is a scientific consensus on many of the points. Many of those who make much noise in the media about it have very little scientific training (on both sides). Imagine someone who has had one class in canon law trying to operate as a canon lawyer. To someone who knows nothing of canon law, they may sound reasonable and informed - but to a canon lawyer? Nope. I find the same here.
ReplyDeleteA more helpful term is global climate instability.
I'm Jewish. I don't find Zombie Rabbis funny.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we could dig up images of priest doing weird things. Ahem.
Rachel
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteYour analogy isn't quite right. I don't pretend to be a scientist telling real scientists what's right/wrong.
There are plenty of real scientists who have serious objections to AGW. In fact, over the weekend, climatologist at the Univ. of Bristol issued a report concluding that the airborne fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere has not risen in the last 150 yrs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm). Real scientists, real research.
The better analogy would be for AGW: a small group of canon lawyers are insisting that there is a consensus on the law and that ALL canon lawyers must agree with their interpretation of the law, or risk losing their status/funding as canon lawyers.
Fr. Philip,
ReplyDeleteThe majority of scientists do agree that anthropogenic climate change is underway. I've read the paper you refer to; the author does not dispute the existence of anthropogenic climate change, his point is that the oceans appear for the moment to be an "infinite" sink for CO2. CO2 dissolves in water in direct proportion to its concentration in the atmosphere (this is called Henry's law and is true for all gases). Some models assume that eventually the oceans will be unable to absorb additional CO2, and so the amount in the atmosphere will increase faster. He argues this is not the case. He does not argue that climate change is not occurring, merely that it will not get exponentially worse (just linearly worse).
There is disagreement on substantive points, but there is not on the fundamentals.
Michelle, what data set supports the essential claim of AGW?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell there is no reliable data to be had...thus the fraud of the East Anglia gang.
I'm looking again for a report I read this weekend written by a member of the 1997 IPCC panel...he says flat out that the final report voted on by the members was radically altered by the panel's chair...w/o the review or approval of the panel. It was rewritten to remove or minimize doubts about the essential claim of AGW expressed by an overwhelming majority of the panel.
I read anyone claiming that they have unadultered, untampered with, unadjusted data...everyone always seems to refer to some other data set that is itself a reference to some other data set that was collected under dubious conditions and then "tricked into hiding the decline."
Here is a relatively readable summary: from NOAA
ReplyDeleteAnd since the "trick" was published and clearly described-- it's not like anyone was being misleading...
Uh, father, i think what people are suggesting is that they KNOW you allow things to be posted that are objectionable and THAT is what they find strange.
ReplyDeleteI, too, remember the abused guy and how it took a beating and you allowed it. I also noticed a really TERRIBLY embarrassing thing you posted regarding Might Mom in stretch pants and you posted it.
It's poor judgement. Even childish.
You aren't perfect. THAT is a FACT.
You are so freakin' arrogant.
Michelle
Michelle, thanks for the link! Unfortunately, it looks like many of the NOAA conclusions are drawn from the IPCC process...given the controversy around the 1995 report (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm) I think I'll maintain my original position that there is no scientific consensus on AGW. The basic problem for me as a non-scientist is that the AGW thesis requires me to believe all of the following:
ReplyDelete--raw data are freely available for interested scientists to access and analyze.
--these data are collected using methods that are public and free of overt, intentional manipulation by partisans.
--instruments used to collect the data are in representative geographical locations (i.e., not mostly urban areas)
--findings are peer-reviewed and once published all available data, analytical methods, etc. are made public
...and I'm not even including here all the political, economic stuff, etc that I would have to believe. The Easy Anglia fraud undermined ALL of the above and forever poisoned any data, findings, etc. used by these hacks to push there agenda.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that global mean temps are rising and humans are causing it...do we have any reliable evidence that this is a bad thing in the long run? The CO2 report issued by Univ of Bristol seems to indicate that the climate is much more elastic than the AGW fans want to believe.
You infinitely weird Fat Head,
ReplyDeletePeople are appalled that you DO post the stuff you do.
Got that????
It's simple. Even you should grasp it.
You are declaring your in control of a bunch of crap that's run amok and you're PROUD of it.
You are the biggest jackass EVER.
Bob
The Albanian Mafia guy is HAWT!
ReplyDeleteMelanie
Michelle, I certainly don't intend to be arrogant...please, direct me to these comments...everyone keeps talking about them but no one seems to be able to actually tell me where they are...emails and combox comments are so often infused with the projected anxieties of the readers that I don't trust the memories of others to report accurately what was actually WRITTEN (i.e., and not what was "heard").
ReplyDeleteJust b/c I allow someone to say something in the combox doesn't mean I agree with it. That's a false assumption. For e.g., check out Bob's oh-so-charitable comment above. So long as comments are not loaded with profanity or contain objectionable links, I allow them...even ones that insult me directly.
And what's this about MightyMom and stretch pants????
ReplyDeleteFr. Powell and Dr. Francl,
ReplyDeleteI read your exchange with interest, as I am, too, a scientist and headed into a residency for a career in academic neurology.
Let me start by saying that I have no opinion on the issue of global warming. I say this in the medical-legal sense of the word: I have no authoritative commentary to make on the subject. I can, however, say that I am entirely disgusted with the climate debate as a whole and what it's done to science, and I watch your discussion with interest because it depicts, fundamentally, what troubles me about the issue.
The fact that the climate community has invited criticism of their data gathering and processing and then rejected substantive measures to correct even the appearance of bias in their peer review process is infuriating. Moreover, the fact that criticism is met with dismissive comments about consensus and parries like, "debate is over," is aggravating. Likewise, it frustrates me to no end that many laity will cherry pick one or two studies use this to justify a belief or personal bias by fallacious appeal to authority--"Real scientists, real research."
Layer onto this debate the fact that positions have been immensely politicized and you end up with, in essence, a meteorological version of the evolution debate. However, data regarding global climate change is more murky than the comparatively clear evidence for evolution and there's a lot more money at stake on either side of the climate debate as well.
It's just infuriating to me that climate scientists in either camp are politicizing themselves without even a semblance of policing themselves and all participants, scientists to one degree and the laity to a greater degree, are doing a lot of cherry picking to bolster their point of view at the cost of the credibility of atmospheric science in particular, and science in general. To be continued...
...Continued from above.
ReplyDeleteFor me the answer is to put up or shut up. Clearly, you two wish to put up, and that's fine, admirable even. If so, I hope you consider these thoughts, which are intended with both affection and charity, because I appreciate what you two bring to the table.
Dr. Francl, it does strike me as a bit unfair to say that there is no fundamental, only substantive, debate on a given subject when there continues to be meaningful, albeit few, challenges to the validity of fundamental data collection and processing techniques and the lingering and poorly addressed bias in the peer review process. Additionally, offering a citation free NOAA review to a clearly motivated and intelligent layman is probably a touch on the patronizing side of things. Fr. Powell is bright and even if one feels he is arrogant, he can generate the CPU cycles to read a tough scientific paper if he chooses to. Please, teach him to the level of his criticism by giving him the less readable and more foundational papers that address his concerns regarding data collection and processing. If he fails to read them or misinterprets them, then nail him, by all means, 'cause he'll deserve it at that point. But please don't toss out consensus without giving him the information he needs to decide if he should concede or no.
Likewise, Fr. Powell, please do the foundational readings in the subject if you are going to critique their methodologies. Seriously, a lot people with serious agendas have criticized the climate research, but they have agendas, just like the pro-climate change folks. Go to the data yourself so you can affirm or reject your current opinion. Go back and systematically look to see in the literature whether or not there is reason to accept or reject the claims you listed that you would have to believe, and don't take a commentator's word for it. For example, the NOAA does publish source data. Take a look. And, when you critique, cite it for justification of your critique. And, never, please, NEVER say something like, "Real scientists, real research," to a scientist, because it's like a red cape to a bull--you better hope you have a sword. And in this situation, it's not entirely clear that you do have that sword.
Me? Other than commenting on the nature of the debate-something on which I believe I am qualified to opine, when it comes to climate change, I choose to shut up. And so best wishes, prayers, and adieu.
Matt, it fails to amaze me how easily combox comments can be misinterpreted. Why is it so clear in my head and then so muddled when I type it?! :-)
ReplyDeleteMy comment, "Real scientists, real research" was not meant to dismiss AGW scientists/research...it was meant to emphasize my lack of scientific credentials! Cf. "I do not pretend to be a scientist..."
Oh well...
Here's me being a philosopher:
AGW folks assert two basic claims: 1) global mean temps are rising; and 2) these GMT increases are caused by human activity.
Each assertion needs it own set of premises backed by evidence. OK. Most of us are not scientists so we cannot read the professional journals to determine how the evidence was collected, analyzed, etc. We rely on the ethical standards and the integrity of the scientific method to protect us from fraud, etc.
Here's the situation we do NOT have: 90% of all climatologists agree that both premises of AGW are true. 5% are quibbling on details and the other 5% of nutcases.
What we have is something far different...and I don't have to be a scientist to read English...there is a HUGE debate within the community at every level of this discussion. For every paper put out there "proving" AGW, someone publishes a paper showing how that one was wrong, etc., ad. nau. This is how science is done, I know.
But what we can't do is take this debate, distill it into intrusive, expensive policy, declare the debate over b/c WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOWNOWNOW!!!! and then demonize those who want to say, "Wait a sec. There are thousands of qualified people out there looking at the same data and they do not agree that AGW is happening."
I have to be a scientist to know any of this. In philosophy, if you make an assertion (X = true), then you are bound to demonstrate the truth of your assertion against all comers. At some point in the debate, it might happen that your assertion is accepted as true by consensus. But the philosophy faculty of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don't just get to declare X is true by majority vote and then excommunicate anyone who says otherwise.
If the Easy Anglia debacle showed us anything, it showed us just how important ethics really are in scientific research. Without them, there's no trust from those of us who must rely on the community's good faith to tell us the truth.
Matt, it fails to amaze me how easily combox comments can be misinterpreted. Why is it so clear in my head and then so muddled when I type it?! :-)
ReplyDeleteMy comment, "Real scientists, real research" was not meant to dismiss AGW scientists/research...it was meant to emphasize my lack of scientific credentials! Cf. "I do not pretend to be a scientist..."
Oh well...
Here's me being a philosopher:
AGW folks assert two basic claims: 1) global mean temps are rising; and 2) these GMT increases are caused by human activity.
Each assertion needs it own set of premises backed by evidence. OK. Most of us are not scientists so we cannot read the professional journals to determine how the evidence was collected, analyzed, etc. We rely on the ethical standards and the integrity of the scientific method to protect us from fraud, etc.
Here's the situation we do NOT have: 90% of all climatologists agree that both premises of AGW are true. 5% are quibbling on details and the other 5% of nutcases.
What we have is something far different...and I don't have to be a scientist to read English...there is a HUGE debate within the community at every level of this discussion. For every paper put out there "proving" AGW, someone publishes a paper showing how that one was wrong, etc., ad. nau. This is how science is done, I know.
But what we can't do is take this debate, distill it into intrusive, expensive policy, declare the debate over b/c WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOWNOWNOW!!!! and then demonize those who want to say, "Wait a sec. There are thousands of qualified people out there looking at the same data and they do not agree that AGW is happening."
I have to be a scientist to know any of this. In philosophy, if you make an assertion (X = true), then you are bound to demonstrate the truth of your assertion against all comers. At some point in the debate, it might happen that your assertion is accepted as true by consensus. But the philosophy faculty of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don't just get to declare X is true by majority vote and then excommunicate anyone who says otherwise.
If the Easy Anglia debacle showed us anything, it showed us just how important ethics really are in scientific research. Without them, there's no trust from those of us who must rely on the community's good faith to tell us the truth.
It occurred to me to add here...I know full well that Michelle and Matt are not defending the unethical behavior of the East Anglia Boys. My concern is that qualified scientists keep telling us that there is consensus on AGW and we never actually see any such consensus.
ReplyDeleteAlso, my reluctance to accept AGW is not indicative of a general anti-environmentalism...I'm very pro-environment, understood as God's creation.
Father,
ReplyDeleteI knew you weren't trying to dismiss scientists. It was just a friendly warning that in citing papers, whether you claim to be a scientist or no, you're starting to act like one, and you start to assume the responsibilities inherent therein. Consider if I'm discussing a point of theological contention and I point to a paper supporting my opinion. "This is Theology by a REAL THEOLOGIAN!" By invoking the paper and it's authority, I'm assuming some level of authority myself, even if I deny it.
Plus, I know how humorously tenuous the assertion "real science by a real scientist" can be. I can point you to a paper on forced homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck. Real science, by real scientists :-)
'In philosophy, if you make an assertion (X = true), then you are bound to demonstrate the truth of your assertion against all comers.'
Would, Father, that this were true. If this were the case, movie stars wouldn't blame vaccines for Autism, evolution wouldn't be an issue, and patients wouldn't tell me that doctors are hiding the cure for cancer. The problem is, no matter how true something is, if someone approaches it with intellectual dishonesty, truth is irrelevant, particularly if people have a stake in being "right".
But, here's where I think you and I agree: in my opinion regarding the nature of the discussion of "AGW," there is a ton of intellectual dishonesty. I think both of us see it on both sides, though our emphasis is different-you focus on the AGW side and I lavish my contempt a little more evenhandedly. If I didn't make it clear that I think the discourse is, in it's current form, a travesty, my apologies, for I believe we agree here, as well. And, I hope I make it clear that you raise questions that should be addressed beyond an appeal to consensus (a favorite fallacy of mine, given my interest in medical history).
One last point with regards to the scientific establishment protecting against fraud--I say bunk. As a layman in faith, I cannot rely on the "theological establishment" to keep me from error, because much of the establishment is spouting heterodoxical garbage. Unless I make an effort to seek out magisterial teachings and do my own due diligence, if I fall into error, it's still my problem. Should this be so? No, but it is.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, there is a level of understanding of science that an educated layman must achieve to protect himself from the vicissitudes of bad research, whether it be meteorological or medical. Again, SHOULD this be necessary? No, but it is. Bad science exists for many reasons, and worse reporting and utilization of science by third parties is rampant. You don't need a degree, you needn't be a master of statistics, but you should be able to recognize a hypothesis, variables, controls, the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, and the difference between correlation and causation.
Sorry about plugging up your com box. I'll be quite for a while :-)
Matt -- just to be clear, the Michelle that made the comments about arrogance was not me! Comboxes are tough enough to navigate without conflating identities.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Fr. Philip, the situation you describe - 90% of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals is precisely what we have. Various surveys have been done over the last several years assessing just that point - what is the range of the consensus within the climatology community. It runs right around 90%.
Matt, I agree, people should educate themselves. The reality is that they do not (the majority of Americans don't know that lasers use light, not sound, for example). But the amount of background you need to really read the literature in this field is quite high -- far more math than Fr. Philip has had, for example. It's not so much that these are "tough" papers, but they assume a math background that extends far beyond calculus.
And Fr. Philip is correct, I am not defending unethical behavior. And I will try to dig out some references to data sets that are untainted (they do exists) -- but it won't be for several days. I'm off today to see my spiritual director and confessor, and to spend 24 hours in silence and prayer. And before I go I need to get another 1000 words written on my book and draft a 600 something word column!! No coffee bowl browsing for me...
grace and peace,
Michelle
Dr. Michelle (as opposed to troll Michelle) :-),
ReplyDelete"But the amount of background you need to really read the literature in this field is quite high -- far more math than Fr. Philip has had, for example. It's not so much that these are "tough" papers, but they assume a math background that extends far beyond calculus."
Agreed--it's probably too much math. But that's still why it might be helpful just to look at. Seeing something in a field you're fascinated by but don't understand can be usefully humbling at times and build perspective. Also Sprach Zarathustra and Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen made it clear to me the very VERY finite limitations of my philosophical mind--a personal realization I needed! :-)
Prayers to you for your book and your retreat. I respect the heck out of you both and this was an interesting discussion to read, and gives me hope that good combox discussion can exist in spite of trolls.
just wanted to drop in and say hello and say that I got St. Philip Neri as my patron saint of this year 2010, now every time I invoke of his intercession I will remember to pray for you as well
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year Father!
-Madalena