We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I think it likely that humans affect the climate slightly. After all, we apparently warmed things thousands of years ago when we learned farming and herding, cleared lots of land, and multiplied in number. That actually worked out okay.
I'm just not seeing any convincing evidence of catastrophe. If you want something environmental to get worked up about, I recommend fresh water being needed in populated areas.
I admit I have significant bias in favor of people who are living now, rather than people living a century from now.
Assistant Village Idiot
Assistant Village Idiot: I recommend fresh water being needed in populated areas.
Good point. Much of the world relies on glacier melt, which are threatened by global warming. Increasing desertification is another problem for providing fresh water.
The problem with this climate change business is that it's become a religion to some people. The site you reference seems to have a reasonable approach. They seem to care about conservation, while showing why we have to be skeptical about "climate" alarmism.
I hope the Catholic Church's position will be in the "reasonable" range too, because there are ways that we can conduct our lives that reduce pollution, and we should obviously do that. What they call "stewardship" of nature has always been a part of the church's teaching.
statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.
Funny! Hadn't seen that one.
Consider a random walk (with time in the horizontal dimension, and the random walk up or down incrementally in the vertical dimension). A random walk may have moved up over time, or with equal probability have moved down over time. Let's assume we look at the random walk and there has been a trend upward. Now let's assume the vertical dimension represents global mean surface temperature, which it is posited is due to the random walk, say +20°C.
The claim is preposterous on its face. Mere randomness can't result in the vast amount of heat required to warm the Earth +20°C. Saying "Random Fluctuation" is physically meaningless. It's not even wrong!!
Take a simple example, the temperature of a pot of water. We measure the temperature at regular intervals. The results form a standard distribution about a mean.
Now add a very small source of heat to the pot. There are still fluctuations, which makes the rise in temperature inconsistent, but as time progresses, we see that the moving average of our measurements slowly rises.
To someone who is unaware of the source of heat, and only has access to the temperature readings, would they conclude the rise in temperature is due to a random walk? Of course not!! We have a very good understanding of heat and temperature, so the heat must be accounted for by something other than "random fluctuations".