Faithful Catholics will be interested in what Pope Benedict said to the United Nations General Assembly on 18 April 2008
True, faithful Catholics will be interested in what he said then.
Of course it's also true that faithful Catholics won't be interested in what he said then.

Important points CT,
Faithful Catholics will be interested in what Pope Benedict said to the United Nations General Assembly on 18 April 2008 [my emphasis]
Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the CLIMATE, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization.
...
My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family. It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to offer her proper contribution to building international relations in a way that allows every person and every people to feel they can make a difference.

Deeds Vatican announces plans to become first "carbon neutral state" in the world

Though this was brought up someone in another thread, in the interests of not letting him make that thread veer off course, let me remark in this thread that weather, despite Chinese claims to the contrary, for the most part cannot be "controlled", but that is distinct from whether climate or for that matter weather can be influenced; climate and weather are two distinct animals just as control and influence are.

In terms of climate change, I think there are two things missing from the discussion:
(1) The use of theories similar to expected value calculus that take into account uncertainty, varying utilities, or even risk-averseness. So a simplistic, "This is why we should never use the uncertain chance of catastrophe as a reason to sacrifice economic equity" is unwarranted. So this is an issue of "science" if you will.
(2) The relating of facts and features related to (1) a moral dimension with the importation of discussions of the virtues of wisdom and prudence into the discussion. Not doing this, may make one not realize or forget that climate change involves issues that are of a profound moral character.
I am going to abstain from criticizing the natural science or misinterpretation of the same in this thread except in the paralipsis of this sentence.

The modelers do not claim to know all the factors
They do not know all the factors. That's why their mock ups prove nothing. "Garbage in, garbage out." I'm only interested in scientific evidence, not video games. Arrant speculation and wishful thinking is no less arrant speculation and wishful thinking just because it's in binary code.
I don't know if scientists who have noticed there's no evidence of manmade global warming have come up with their own meaningless computer games, but I hope they haven't.

What do you call a worldwide attack of killer bees?
?
?
?
Global Swarming :)
The Chicken

In looking at how temperature cycles can be decomposed, I found that, apparently, climatologists have very little understanding of how radiation affects heat transfer in the upper atmosphere. This is most disturbing to me.
A good site to review the history (it is pro global warming) is this one.
The Chicken

TMC,
Even scarier, that's not an axe murderer under the bed, that's a tax murderer :)
The scariness of the 'Tax murderer' is dependent upon whether the person is a murderous tax collector, or a murderer of tax collectors. ;-D

Jordanes
your objection would be valid if the 'unknown' gaps between observed temperature and known natural causes were simply attributed to human causes. But they are not. Even with natural + human causes there is a good but not perfect fit. We would expect a perfect fit by the simple subtraction I think you are alleging.
Prof Cox/Attenborough video shows:
red - observed temp
green - natural causes
yellow - natural + human causes
As this does not seem to be clear enough for you, please see this
by a climate scientist
it shows 3 graphs:
1. Natural causes (independently modeled) vs observed temperature - there are some big gaps
2. Human causes (independently modeled) vs observed temperature - there are some big gaps
3. Natural + human causes vs observed temperature - a close but not perfect fit.
Since we do not even know what all the natural causes might be or how those natural causes interact with earth's environment, it is impossible to conclude that computer game simulations show anything at all.
The modelers do not claim to know all the factors, see the amazing detail of chapters 8 & 9 of
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Physical Science Basis and you will see that your simplistic straw man does not apply.
In other words, if I make the computer game function in a certain way with data that I select, I can make it seem like it confirms my hypothesis.
If that were so then all that a sceptical climate scientist need do is what you suggest and make their own reductio ad absurdum climate model with a better fit with observation using natural factors alone. Have they?

Despite their limitations of all models including climate models, the climate models do show that
- natural causes alone cannot explain recent climate observations
Since we do not even know what all the natural causes might be or how those natural causes interact with earth's environment, it is impossible to conclude that computer game simulations show anything at all.
- but by including human causes we get a much closer approximation to observations.
In other words, if I make the computer game function in a certain way with data that I select, I can make it seem like it confirms my hypothesis.
Doubt could be cast on the validity of these models if eg sceptical scientists were able to produce computer models which produced a better fit with observations using natural-causes-only assumptions - are there any?
Sorry, that's not how science works. You don't establish that your hypothesis is true by protesting that you can't figure out any better explanation based on your limited understanding of the ecosystem. The Global Warmingists, if they really want to do science instead of playing Climate Age of Empires, should be asking themselves what they've missed. "It's a better fit" proves nothing when you're not omniscient.

The Warmingites refuse to believe that the Sun has much impact on climate. Their views simply aren't science.
the global warming models should actually take the sun and solar activity into account - which they don't.
but they do, see the Attenborough/Peter Cox video below @ 1 min 25 sec
Climate has many complex and interrelated causes. Can one separate the natural causes from any alleged human ones?
David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that all global warming could be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why - discussion with climate scientist Prof Peter Cox (3 mins)
More on computer models by Dr Vicky Pope climatologist
Despite their limitations of all models including climate models, the climate models do show that
- natural causes alone cannot explain recent climate observations
- but by including human causes we get a much closer approximation to observations.
Doubt could be cast on the validity of these models if eg sceptical scientists were able to produce computer models which produced a better fit with observations using natural-causes-only assumptions - are there any?

the 1930s were warmer
False: according to UK Meteorological Office
Bob, perhaps you could provide a source for your claim, so we can check the facts/sources.
Earth has been cooling for 10 years now. We are indeed predicted to go back to Washington in Valley Forge conditions by 2030.
Says who?
This type of claim is false: according to UK Meteorological Office
The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler.
more on La Nina cooling
Tens of thousands of climatologists disagree with the global warming alarmism. Including some that the IPCC falsely claims support it.
labrialumn, some references would be helpful.
I am surprised to hear that there are so many climatologists on earth - but I'm willing to be convinced.
I've quoted the repeated statements of the National Science Academies - the cream of the academic scientific world of many countries - they should know who amongst their academic colleagues are climate scientists and what their opinion is.
Is there a massive conspiracy? The BBC invited evidence
The sum total of evidence ... is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling. No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden.

There was once a consensus among doctors that children with Down's Syndrome ...
Maybe there was such a consensus - but was it based on empirical evidence?. I would distinguish between a consensus based on empirical research and one based on parroting what one's elders said, without any empirical evidence. The most famous example of the latter is Aristotle's common-sense assumption that a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one: an intuitive assumption which was not tested empirically until Galileo.
A great deal of empirical research has been done on climate - as the GW conspiracy theorists will confirm.
It is rational to rely on scientific consensus based on a large body of empirical evidence. We do this with most medical matters eg tobacco causes cancer - I have not read the primary research papers, I'm not sure I would understand them properly. Yet I believe that tobacco causes cancer, despite the FUD put out by tobacco companies. One could argue that doctors are lying about tobacco, just to get research funding or charge us fees for tests, or that governments and the UN World Health Organization collude in the tobacco alarmist conspiracy just to increase tobacco taxes on the pretext of health promotion.

Chicken,
your interesting comments on statistical methods reinforces my point that it is very difficult to be an armchair climatologist. Most armchair pundits will barely understand your comments, let alone evaluate the possible answers.
I expect that appropriate statistical analysis is done as part of the peer-review process or included in the main text of a scientific paper. The same statistical standards are required by journals like Nature whether the paper is on climate change or tobacco-cancer. One could always drill down to check the original papers quoted in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Physical Science Basis

Taylor learned his lesson very well (which is something you need to do in this state if you ever hope to get a job doing anything beyond slinging fast food). When the lefties and greenies jump on your case, you don't say anything negetive about them.
The whole movement is built on two pillars:
1. Equate the UN-proven theory of man-made global warming with the current, predictable slight increase in global surface temperature that is occurring as part of a millions-of-years-old trend of increases and decreases in global temps.
2. Use of the "tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth" method of propaganda. For years now I have been hearing that there is no more argument, it is totally settled, ALL legitimate scientists agree, the absolute proof is in, and - lastly - the almighty CONSENSUS.
There was once a consensus among doctors that children with Down's Syndrome (at the time they were referred to as 'Mongoloid Idiots') should simply be locked away in institutions as they were incapable of learning or becoming functional human beings. Gee, let's hear it for consensus.
Taylor doesn't deny that there was a very slight increase in global temps in recent years (the 1930s were warmer). He was just crazy enough to think that maybe, just maybe, the global warming models should actually take the sun and solar activity into account - which they don't.

Dear Foxfier,
Even scarier, that's not an axe murderer under the bed, that's a tax murderer :)
(I don't know what that means, but it sounds funny).
The Chicken

See? That issue of Newsweek in the mid 70's on a coming Ice Age was right!!! Who has the last laugh now?
(/sarcasm off)

(thank you, SDG-- I thought we were getting a bit serious, there)

""Most have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming""
No. Some have. What Most Scientists have discovered is that the big media head lines that shout how bad humanity is lead to funding and not agreeing with the favored narrative leads to no funding.
The climate is changing, you say? Well hell yes it is! Its a climate! That's what climates do - they change! the models make little or no allowance for variations in solar output, and the huge massive contribution of cosmic rays which affect cloud formation and are affected by solar output. The system is far too complicated for our current modeling capabilities. So they make massive simplifying assumptions which you can be sure will be in accord with their funding objectives. I've seen it happen. Been there, done that.

(he's actually under the bed)
(snort!)

Through diligent study of the primary sources, have found out what is really causing global warming - all of the hot air escaping from comboxes :)
But seriously, just as there are overtones in any complex wave that shows up as temporary highs and lows, so there are fluctuations in climate. The problem is to find out whether or not the fluctuations are random, temporary (a minor higher order cause), or genuine deviations from the average. This is the domain of what is known as Time Series Analysis.
One way to do that is to do a (alert, alert, techspeak) Fourier transform of the data and do a waterfall plot to look at the time evolution structure. Also, one can calculate the Lyopanov exponent to check for chaos. I have not seem anyone do this. Looking at a chart of rising and falling temperature will not tell one if the changes are due to random, minor, or significant factors.
Climatologists should certainly know this, because Lorenz (a meteorologist) was the first person to observe chaos in computer data. I have not seen research done to see if the effects are random or deterministic. I will do some research of the primary literature and get back to you.
Certainly, mathematicians should be better at analyzing this sort of data than a climatologist (I am not a mathematician, but I have done work in dynamical systems theory).
The Chicken

Wow! How'd that get past James Hanson? He's been violating the Hatch Act politicking on work time (and doctoring data to make it look like it supported warming) for years out of Goddard!
Tens of thousands of climatologists disagree with the global warming alarmism. Including some that the IPCC falsely claims support it.
Earth has been cooling for 10 years now. We are indeed predicted to go back to Washington in Valley Forge conditions by 2030.
The Warmingites refuse to believe that the Sun has much impact on climate. Their views simply aren't science.

And reportedly, "George Taylor quietly stated that we would probably be worse off if we chose to believe him and it turned out he was wrong."
....isn't that a little nonsensical?
I mean, if you believe me that there's not an axe murderer hiding in your closet, and I'm wrong, you're much worse off...that's not an argument for there being an axe murderer in your closet!
(he's actually under the bed)

George Taylor... The guy was branded a "denier" (ala "holocaust denier") and basically kicked out of his job
If Taylor is to be believed, then one should accept his word: "I'm walking out voluntarily -- it's good timing for me," Taylor said. "I'm going out willingly."
But not everyone thinks he should be believed: "Taylor doesn't contribute to genuine scientific debate in this area. He doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. He simply uses his soapbox of head of the Oregon Climate Service to echo the party line of global-warming deniers: 'The science isn't in.' But it is. George Taylor is misinformed, not a skeptic."
And reportedly, "George Taylor quietly stated that we would probably be worse off if we chose to believe him and it turned out he was wrong."

Most of the scientist who aren't kooks agree humans are causing global warming.
How do you know they're not kooks?
They say humans are causing global warming....

One only needs to read the story of George Taylor, who used to be our state climatologist here in Oregon, to get the picture about the politics about 'global warming.' The guy was branded a "denier" (ala "holocaust denier") and basically kicked out of his job by no less than our mighty Gov. Kulongoski.
The whole movement and crisis is nothing but an absurd scam.
An oft repeated truism: When in doubt, follow the money...

Bill912
It would have been more accurate if I said
"Most have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming"
"Most" not "some" is supported by my references.

Chicken
I take your point. Astronomical observation is one of the last areas of science where a gifted or diligent amateur can still make a difference. Sadly my eyesight and urban light pollution put paid to my youthful astronomical observations - Galaxy Zoo looks interesting.
By "armchair X" I meant someone who does not have very much expertise in an area but who freely pontificates - as I do :)
When I read scientific papers in an area outside of my specialism I must confess that I rarely understand them sufficiently. Ordinary science rarely proceeds on the basis on one paper alone, but on the accumulation of research papers, which most non-specialists do not have the ability or time to understand. It makes sense to rely on those who can understand that specialism.
It would be good if more people were able to become involved in science "from their armchairs", but the difficulty that even science graduates have in reading papers outside of their specialism is a major obstacle.
This is why I would tend not to rely on an armchair doctor - their opinion on a matter of medical fact is likely to be less reliable than a qualified one.

The link for the Galaxy Zoo.
The Chicken

"They (scientists) have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming...and that humans have caused recent warming."
No, *some* scientists have come to those conclusions. Others have not. To state the above, and leave the impression that no scientists have reached any other conclusion, is the mark of a True Believer.

Hey, J.R. Stoodley, nice to hear from you, again.
Leo,
There have been many important contributions by armchair mathematicians (Pierre de Fermat, for one). There are many different types of climatologists - theoretical, practical, etc. It is entirely possible that an armchair climatologist could make an important discovery. More comets are discovered by amateur astronomers (in some cases using nothing but the Internet) than ever before. In fact, astronomers are happy for the help. A great site for armchair astronomy, where you can actually do real work, is < a href="http://www.galaxyzoo.org/">the Galaxy Zoo. It is a place where armchair astronomers, with a little bit of training, learn to classify galaxies. People are better at it than machines.
Climatology is not harder than astronomy. If astronomers can find ways to get the public involved, perhaps climatologists can, too.
There are areas where non-professionals can make a difference. Certain advanced mathematics must be left, for the most part, to experts, because it takes a very long time to develop the requisite background, but there are areas that are accessible that people can jump right in and make discoveries, such as recreational math.
The larger problem is that it takes a degree of determination and perseverance which few people are willing to invest in. Many people want quick answers and they get frustrated when they can't see the answer or find it. This is the true test of the passion for a subject. Few people are passionate about discovery and do not know how to treat the unknown. Many people like easy challenges, today.
When you are lost and have no idea how to proceed, then you have a real problem to deal with and real problems test character. Would that we would train our children in this way. Instead, we give them answers to memorize and make their self-esteem based on nothing more than opinion.
The Chicken

The scientists are collecting the data. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming (despite occasional variations), and that humans have caused recent warming.
The question of climate change is a scientific one, based on observations. But who are the real experts? Have the the real experts come to a consensus based on evidence? Who can tell us?. National Science Academies are the cream of the academic scientific establishment. They should be able to identify the real scientific experts and whether there is a consensus on a matter of scientific fact.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued these statements:
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.” 2001
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" 2005
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." 2007
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Other mainstream consensus scientific opinions here Tip: use Wikipedia to identify primary sources and check them out.
Are all these scientists, mostly tenured, from very different political systems, part of a massive global conspiracy? Do we think that medical scientists are lying about tobacco causing cancer or that the HIV virus causes AIDS?
I am due to have a minor operation soon. Who do I want to operate upon me? A friend with the same political opinions who has spent 10 minutes on google? or someone who is scientifically/medically qualified, with degrees from recognized institutions? If there is a medical consensus based on evidence then it is more rational to put my life in the hands of the expert consensus (if there is one) rather than a maverick opinion.
Not all scientific opinions are equal - some people know more than me - and probably everyone else here. They are also aware of the sceptical objections better than most armchair climatologists.

JR Stoodley wrote:
I've basically sunk into a cynical agnosticism concerning this issue. Scientists and politicians seem incapable of approaching it in a professional manner, so a climatology layman like me can't do anything but sit back and watch.
Ah, I know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way about any number of issues. That's the effect of massive amounts of information, misinformation, disinformation, and outright fabrications.
Fortunately, the answers I really need have been given to me (how to treat God and my fellow man); I often suspect that issues of larger significance are really of much smaller significance, if you know what I mean.

How come Leo's site says 2007 was the eighth warmest year on record (exceeded by 1998 and six years of this decade) but this cite says there was this huge cooling episode bringing us back to where we were in 1930? Something doesn't add up, which isn't surprising since both sites seemed quite biased.
I've basically sunk into a cynical agnosticism concerning this issue. Scientists and politicians seem incapable of approaching it in a professional manner, so a climatology layman like me can't do anything but sit back and watch.

"All I can say is let scientist continue to collect data."
Absolutely. I'm not saying Global Warming is over and finished as a phenomenon of planetary climate... the climate has always changed and always will.
I was referring to the current psycho-social phenomenon called Global Warming. I think it may be approaching the end of its shelf life.

Leo-- you mean the information mentioned here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
(more can be found by googling NASA climate change Hansen error)

I think Tim's sources are grossly misrepresenting NASA to the point of deception.
See the NASA Climate Change site for a summary of the scientific evidence of how humans are now changing the earth's climate. The different sections on the left for key indicators / evidence are instructive.

I hate to say this, since I am not a fan of the science behind global warming, but the relative minimum in the solar cycle was predicted at least two years ago. Here is an article from NASA.
The problem is that there is a complex interaction between solar heating, carbon dioxide concentration (and location), water vapor, etc. One variable probably does not account for all of the data, alone. If we are approaching a Maunder Minimum (unusually low, sustained, sunspot activity), this does not, necessarily, mean the beginning of a little ice age, because back in 1675 - 1715 A. D., there was far less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there was probably more ozone, etc.
All I can say is let scientist continue to collect data.
The Chicken

A cheeky person might be tempted to say something like, "Wow, it's a good thing we spent a century warming up the earth a little... looks like it's going to get cold..."

Thanks God the oceans don't cool off too fast and help keep the earth's temperature stable.

It amazes me how easily so many people have bought into the whole scam.

That's why taking a look at this (rather long) speech by Michael Crichton is highly recommended.

Somebody should inform Congress. Don't need the Gore bulbs after all. And while they're at it, tell Senators McCain and Obama, they're both planning to effect national policies to halt 'global warming'. I guess Al Gore really earned that Nobel after all, flying around the world, cashing in those 'carbon offsets', raking in the huge speaker's fees, and single-handedly changing the climate of the entire world. Nicely done!
Drudge has a headline today that some 'expert' is calling for the world-wide rationing of meat and milk, to combat 'global warming'. It amazes me how easily so many people have bought into the whole scam.

Somebody should inform Congress. Don't need the Gore bulbs after all. And while they're at it, tell Senators McCain and Obama, they're both planning to effect national policies to halt 'global warming'. I guess Al Gore really earned that Nobel after all, flying around the world, cashing in those 'carbon offsets', raking in the huge speaker's fees, and single-handedly changing the climate of the entire world. Nicely done!
Drudge has a headline today that some 'expert' is calling for the world-wide rationing of meat and milk, to combat 'global warming'. It amazes me how easily so many people have bought into the whole scam.