THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY

[Matt Hummel]

Pastor Preus:
Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?
Me:
Possible? It’s not only possible it’s required. Scientists who work for oil companies are likely to report that their findings support the oil companies’ actions aimed at bringing the oil companies greater profit.

But the scientists working at universities and institutions dependent upon government grants, or funding from NPOs with ideological biases are free to pursue the pur science without fear of having to please their masters.   Uh huh. It's cute that you think that. 

[Dave Benke]

Interesting read on the Huxley family titled "How the Huxleys Electrified Evolution."  Brave New World - 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/28/how-the-huxleys-electrified-evolution?utm_campaign=cm&utm_source=crm&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_SubPersRec_020520&utm_medium=email&bxid=5d38a5c5fc942d2823700492&cndid=27896209&hasha=8fa4aa20c709a6497e9da1d9e519b873&hashb=9fdff6188f25bec26c1153f73d759c707bb466b5&hashc=d6db88663bf8517181bdab43aaa289356c0d8ea1ddbec362b44290393d813960&utm_term=NYR_PersRec_CYGNUS_2022-11-23

Blessings to all on Thanksgiving Day!

Dave Benke

[Brian Stoffregen]

When we are told that "God so loved the world," should we care for this planet ("the world") as much as care for our neighbors whom we have been commanded to love?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Ok, life everlasting. With a gracious God in eternity.
Life on this earth? Not so everlasting, for us as individuals or for humans as a species.

What makes you think that a new earth will not be here? What makes you think that we'll be some sort of a new "species"?

'Cause it says that the first heaven and earth passes away.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Tom,

I've encountered Koonin's book and been tempted to use bits of it in an undergraduate course I teach. The problem with him is again that he's not a climate expert. If you look at his dissertation, he's trained in quantum mechanics. He also had a high-profile position at BP. He's not an atmospheric scientist and his graduate students have called him out on his narrative in Unsettled.

My impression is that if you look at atmospheric scientists and cyrologists and oceanographers, there is a really strong consensus that global warming is real and problematic for our ability to maintain our ways of life as we know them right now.

The dissent tends to come from physicists and geologists who have worked for the oil industry, or parts of the government like DOE that have traditionally been sympathetic to the industry. Again me claiming to be a reformation expert.

This dynamic helps illuminate the "rage" against dissent. There isn't really significant dissent among climate experts. The the dissenters are folks on the fringe of the discipline or not even on the fringe who claim expertise. Maybe the analogy is the pastor down the street with no MDiv but with a congregation twice the size of one of our Lutheran parishes that siphons off members because "they're so spirit filled." You can't have a doctrinal discussion with that pastor because he'll move the goalposts over and over again, all the while claiming to be rooted in biblical truth.

Or the analogy is the liberal UCC or ELCA pastor who assures you that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles because the consensus of scholarship says he didn't.  Holding to the received opinion in academia is critical to ones' acceptance.  Just as a theologian seeking acceptance will think twice before breaking with the received wisdom, so will a climatologist.  No one wants to be ostracized.  Is it possible that the scientists who are regarded as "climate experts" must submit to a certain ideology that is unprovable scientifically as a precondition for such acceptance?  Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?

I suspect that well-trained LCMS Ph.D.s in biblical studies are likely to conclude that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. They can logically defend their position, just as well as more liberal scholars argue for a post-Paul authorship.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Preus:
Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?
Me:
Possible? It’s not only possible it’s required. Scientists who work for oil companies are likely to report that their findings support the oil companies’ actions aimed at bringing the oil companies greater profit.

But the scientists working at universities and institutions dependent upon government grants, or funding from NPOs with ideological biases are free to pursue the pur science without fear of having to please their masters.   Uh huh. It's cute that you think that.

And there are scientists working for environmental groups whose biases go the other direction.


There are also groups like Consumer Reports that insist on not receiving moneys from anyone who might influence their findings.


Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

[peter_speckhard]

When we are told that "God so loved the world," should we care for this planet ("the world") as much as care for our neighbors whom we have been commanded to love?

I guess if the world believes in Jesus, it too will have eternal life.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Ok, life everlasting. With a gracious God in eternity.
Life on this earth? Not so everlasting, for us as individuals or for humans as a species.

What makes you think that a new earth will not be here? What makes you think that we'll be some sort of a new "species"?

'Cause it says that the first heaven and earth passes away.

Tha’s nonresponsive, Brian. I said “new” earth, which assumes that the old has passed away.

[Matt Hummel]

Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

And when the Foundation that gave him the money finds out that it didn't get thr results they wanted, they of course renew the grant for the next year, and probably increase cause he's such an honest guy

Brian- you share these anecdotes or connections as if they are mike drop moments and as if no one else might have similar experience. My undergrad work was in Environmental Science. I have seen the sausage made up close and personal.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

And when the Foundation that gave him the money finds out that it didn't get thr results they wanted, they of course renew the grant for the next year, and probably increase cause he's such an honest guy

Brian- you share these anecdotes or connections as if they are mike drop moments and as if no one else might have similar experience. My undergrad work was in Environmental Science. I have seen the sausage made up close and personal.

So, why are your anecdotes more authoritative than mine? I don't discount your experience. There are lenders who are seeking answers to promote their agendas. There are also agencies who give money purely for scientific research - without hidden agendas. There are scientists who will not accept money if they lender has an expected outcome.


The bottom line is that the results are published. Other experts can review the experiments - and duplicate them and/or criticize improper steps. It's repeating the experiments by other labs with the same results that begins to approach an established truth. One experiment truth does not make.

[Matt Hummel]

Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

And when the Foundation that gave him the money finds out that it didn't get thr results they wanted, they of course renew the grant for the next year, and probably increase cause he's such an honest guy

Brian- you share these anecdotes or connections as if they are mike drop moments and as if no one else might have similar experience. My undergrad work was in Environmental Science. I have seen the sausage made up close and personal.

So, why are your anecdotes more authoritative than mine? I don't discount your experience. There are lenders who are seeking answers to promote their agendas. There are also agencies who give money purely for scientific research - without hidden agendas. There are scientists who will not accept money if they lender has an expected outcome.


The bottom line is that the results are published. Other experts can review the experiments - and duplicate them and/or criticize improper steps. It's repeating the experiments by other labs with the same results that begins to approach an established truth. One experiment truth does not make.

I am aware of how the process is supposed to work. I am also aware of the fact that original sin is not left at the lab door. Witness the lying and manipulation over Covid, its origins, and the efficacy of the vaccines.

[JoshuaMc]

I know we don’t all agree about climate change or going to the lord’s supper together, but I hope everyone is having a good thanksgiving! We went to mass, watched the Bills win, and are now cooking. I think we all share this.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am aware of how the process is supposed to work. I am also aware of the fact that original sin is not left at the lab door. Witness the lying and manipulation over Covid, its origins, and the efficacy of the vaccines.

What I heard was scientist making their best guesses on the information they had about COVID and their experiences with other contagions. As they learned more, their best guesses changed.

[Dave Benke]

I know we don’t all agree about climate change or going to the lord’s supper together, but I hope everyone is having a good thanksgiving! We went to mass, watched the Bills win, and are now cooking. I think we all share this.

Mass - check
Cooking/food - check
Bills winning - even though they're the only team from NY, no check unless they make the Super Bowl 

Dave Benke

[Robert Johnson]

Perhaps, Peter et al., this time the sky is falling. But you won’t believe it because the diagnosis comes from people you don’t like.

I don’t like you, and I don’t like your politics. But that’s not the real issue.

I have a PhD in Operations Research, which is focused on data driven decision making and using mathematical modeling to make better decisions.

And I can tell you that the models that predict that the sky is falling are garbage. They gloss over important parts of the problem, and try to make predictions that are well outside the ability of their models over the decades that they are trying to predict.

The number of variables is huge (but inadequate to the task) and the amount of prior data to seed the model is inadequate to the task. Basically the model makers tweak their models to attempt to replicate recent history and project it 100 or so years into the future.

This is a profitable endeavor because it brings funding that academics need. But it isn’t good or competent.