I would disagree with the statement that BioLogos was founded to address “evolution deniers”. We participated at the 2019 Convention in Baltimore. NO ONE was labeled a “DENIER”. The idea was to bring together people with different views on creation. Indeed, while all agreed God created the heavens and earth, there were different views on the time frame. There were Young Earth Creationists…YEC, and Old Earth Creationists..OEC. All Creationists. One interesting program was a debate between a YEC and an OEC….with a twist. Each was required to start the program by stating the position taken by the other person. And, then go from there. Lots of good seminars. And, we picked up a great book on Grand Canyon geology and paleontology. I have used items in those pages in teaching and other talks. The data show the remarkable resilience of the dinosaurs who roamed the earth for almost 150 million years after the Permian extinction up to the KT extinction.
Again, I quote Richard Feynman….Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. Consider stomach ulcers. It was orthodox medicine that they were caused by stress and all sorts of things. Various treatments, surgery, drinking milk to coat the lining of the stomach. But, there were deniers and doubters out there. Lo and behold…..it was a bacterium!!! How about Alzheimer’s Disease.
No thanks. Although it’s probably too late.
Are we discussing semantics? I don’t go around saying “Good morning to you, Denier”.
Doubt is fine. Doubt is useful in science. But doubt without a solid basis is simple opinion, not science.
Doubt that the Earth has not undergone warming since the current CO2 levels have doubled? Fine. Now demonstrate it. Show strong evidence that the current measurements and trends are mistaken.
Doubt that CO2 has any role in global warming? Fine. Show strong evidence the CO2 actually has no effect or show an alternative explanation is viable. Doubt that CO2 is one of the main drivers in current climate change? Ok, but again solidly demonstrate that this is more than opinion. We can all accept that orthodox positions can be wrong. Note that the earlier orthodoxy held that CO2 rising was not a major influencer. But as is often the case, data talks. There were reasons why doubt that CO2 had a warming effect in modern times held sway for a time. And there were new understandings and research why that earlier position was found to be incorrect.
Incorrect orthodoxy is replaced by data and solid research. What advances have the “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” folks made in their scientific research program? Little to none. What research successes have the YECs had that would overturn current ‘orthodoxy’? The same. And what of those who think vaccines cause autism? Same again. The data that continues to accumulate does not advance these various positions of ‘doubt’.
The cause of most stomach ulcers was conclusively found to be H. pylori because of later discoveries and solid research (https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)30032-5/fulltext). The plaque model hypothesis behind Alzheimer’s (amyloid-beta protein fragments) is actually still alive but being revised because of treatment failures and further research. Alternate treatment targets have also been tested in clinics (Tau-protein, whose potential treatability became viable relatively recently) and combination treatments (Tau & amyloid-β) are in the works. The future of Alzheimer’s treatment.
I don’t label people as ‘deniers’. I ask for references and discussion.
OK….by the way did you see this morning that the shingles vaccine “may” serve to prevent/slow down Alzheimer’s? Causation or correlation?
Below are one set of “sourced” temperature data. In particular, note the strong rise from 1650 to 1850. Why is not the current rise attributed to the same mechanism? It is interesting that the current rise is correlated with the rise of CO2…..but, it is causation or correlation. How are all of these other ups and down described without CO2. By your definition, those wishing to divert TRILLIONS of dollars from clean water, better hospitals and better education around the world into solar panels should be able to provide IRONCLAD …..IRONCLAD evidence of the new mechanism. Oh….and one other teeny weenie little point. During most of the period shown, CO2 levels were at around 225 ppm in the atmosphere. They would most likely been doing their greenhouse thing during that period. So, it is only the increase beyond 250 ppm that can be used to blame the current rise.
Go back up to item 331….”why should BioLogos…. denier……?
It is causation, as shown by IPCC climate models and other scientific work.
Well, I got my Shingrix shot for a more proximate purpose but…
Connections to the suppression of the varicella-zoster virus have been hinted for a while, along with other infections that could cause inflammation (e.g. herpes zoster). See here. Whether this is a root cause for Alzheimer’s, a contributing/accelerating but not essential factor, or an artifact is being researched. Alzheimer’s is a tough nut to crack, particularly since it is a disease that can begin decades before a diagnosis. The strongest correlation with a mechanism that we have comes from familial (genetic) forms. Those afflicted will have mutations in one of three proteins that affect amyloid-beta processing. And these related mutations are one of the reasons why amyloid plaques have been a focus of therapeutic attempts. But it’s very possible the disease may have multifactorial contributors, e.g. amyloid misprocessing plus inflammation working together.
GLP-1 drugs and Alzheimer’s? Fairly weak if any correlation found so far.
The graph… You’ve re-posted that figure from one study. Note that the data from Loehle & McCulloch (2008) goes to 1935 and skips the last ~90 years. Also temperature proxy data has been updated with more sources and other temperature measures to generate a more complete picture of global temperatures (figure created from the data of the PAGES 2k Consortium reported here: Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era | Nature Geoscience ).
One can look at the grey bounds (error range) of the plot but the pronounced uptick over the past 75-100 years is very clear and significant (I’ve also uploaded this figure before).
In actuarial calculations, one takes potential risks in account, along with the probabilities of various scenarios. Human psychology shows that humans are notoriously terrible at managing long term risks and as a group, people tend to under-correct even when changes would have had the least cost. By the mid-2000s, the reality of the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases became convincing to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. So the question is ‘what should be done, given the likely effects?’
One option is to do absolutely nothing, let it all go on unabated and try to adapt in piecemeal & uncoordinated ways. Other options involve varying levels of pro-active responses to the risks associated with different levels of abatement.
Even many of the global warming skeptics now agree CO2 is the principal driver of warming. These morphed into either 1) ‘Lukewarmers’, positing that the effects aren’t as big as it appears, or 2) ‘Adaptors’, arguing that mitigation is too expensive and/or the effects are already baked in and too late the change.
You are fixating on “micro” trends that happen in any natural cycling. Your graph is meaningless in the face of 100,000 year trends …. going DOWN from 280 to 180 ppm … followed by going UP from 180 ppm to 280 ppm.
I’ve noticed that as well. It’s the global warming skeptic run-a-round.
Skeptic: There’s no warming.
Scientist: Yes, there has been. Here’s the data.
Skeptic: Yeah, but it’s not caused by humans.
Scientist: Yes, it is caused by humans. Here’s the data
Skeptic: Well, it can’t be that bad because CO2 is plant food.
Scientist: That’s completely irrelevant.
Skeptic: Besides, there’s no warming anyway.
Scientist: sigh
Therefore 4 degrees - for a start - is politically inevitable.
@wbwane, Again, thank you for citing the sources and reasons why you feel global warming is not the issue others suspect. Given the references you’ve forwarded and the diversity of the positions held by those you’ve referenced, I wonder where you currently stand with respect the questions about global warming.
For example, which of the following positions do you current agree with?
-
CO2 is not actually increasing.
-
It is but the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
-
There is warming but it is due to natural causes.
-
Natural causes (non-human) do not explain all the warming but the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
-
The current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate will not be negligible, but the changes are generally going to be good for us.
-
Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
Here are some graphs. One is directly from the CO2 coalition and is SOURCED. The second I had to construct. The clerics of the “Golden Cash Cow Cult” (GCCC) with Al Gore as high priest simply WILL NOT provide a graph of CO2 concentration that starts at ZERO. They always use a suppressed ZERO so that the rise looks BIGGER. Neither will anyone else, so I made one of my own.
I make no claim to understand the fluctuations in temperature over the past 4,000 years. Up and down. The GCCC does not like to even admit to the medieval warm period where the Norse were farming in Greenland and growing grapes in New Brunswick. We visited northern Newfoundland this summer. The guide said that it had to be quite a birthday warmer in the year 1000 to permit the farming the Norse were doing. I have no idea why with good greenhouse gases like water and CO2 the climate cooled from 1000 to 1625!!! Glaciers grew, crops yields were lowered. And, then is started to warm again by 1700 where the graph takes up. And, has warmed steadily since that point. Did the gentle increase in CO2 have an effect. Maybe a small one. As to the future, as Yogi Berra stated, “it is hard to predict the future”.
But, the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere will be minimal as absorption of radiation in the CO2 range is mostly saturated by 400 ppm.
@wbwane , then you should stop with the micro-trend graphs. They are utterly irrelevant for detecting, and explaining, 100,000 year cycles. The graph I am re-posting is much closer to the relevant facts:
And your graph has a suppressed zero!!!
Those 100,000 year or 800,000 year graphs are interesting. And useful to serve as a reminder that conditions on the Earth FLUCTUATE!!!
Irrelevant to our having a runaway greenhouse effect as the oceans absorb the maximum possible and expand. And when CO2 is 1000ppm by 2200, at the latest, it will still be absorbing radiation. Acid, hot - dead - ocean saturation would be 1000 µatm by then too.
Only America and Canada will be driving this. Green River Rising! & Athabasca. Oooh, and Russia of course.
Europe and China and India should be sustainable then for their balance of payments, which should halve the rate? 2300.