Guardian confuses science with religion yet again

Posted: June 13, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, ideology, opinion, Uncertainty
Tags:

[credit: Wikipedia]

[credit: Wikipedia]


More pseudo-religious climate nonsense in Thursday’s Guardian:

Quote: ‘James Inhofe, infamous for tossing a snowball across the Senate floor to demonstrate ‘the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people’, says Pope Francis should ‘stay with his job’ during a pitch to fellow unbelievers

The Guardian report later says: ‘In the world outside, anticipation was building for the pope to deliver his much-awaited encyclical next week, when he is expected to cast climate change as a moral issue.’


Commenters then start shouting about ‘heretics’, stoked up by the reporter talking about imaginary ‘climate deniers’. Not hard to see where this is going – inflated emotional rhetoric trying to drown out rational scientific debate, as usual.

What could possibly go wrong? Check those failing climate models, folks.

Comments
  1. Joe Public says:

    “The Guardian report later says: ‘In the world outside, anticipation was building for the pope to deliver his much-awaited encyclical next week, when he is expected to cast climate change as a moral issue.’”

    As much a ‘moral’ issue as abortion & homosexuality.

  2. Ron Clutz says:

    It’s the next logical step: adding the religious seal to the state of fear.

    Impressively, Michael Crichton had already figured out the game, and he dismantled the idea of global warming alarm in his book State of Fear.

    Michael Crichton had two principle concerns concerning science and society, which led to his criticism of global warming. First, he warned against governments capturing science as a tool to cow the population into funding and submitting to politicians’ policies. Second, he thought scientists in many fields were far too certain and trusting of their knowledge and tools, especially computerized systems.

    Judging by what others have said on blogs, I was not the only one for whom his book (State of Fear) triggered a skeptical stance toward global warming alarm. It was a wake up call for some, and for others, like myself, it was an inoculation against the viral media onslaught to come.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/in-praise-of-michael-crichton/

  3. oldbrew says:

    Still laughing at the term ‘fellow unbelievers’. So comical😄

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    A marriage of the Ecoloon Church with the Church of Rome. I wonder what Liberal Progressives will think about this! They claim to be irreligious with religious zeal and now cheer the the views of the Pope. Somehow, I doubt that GOD will be pleased with this arrangement. pg

  5. tom0mason says:

    Surely this is SNAFU for a Guardian story as they more often than not confuse facts with fiction, or in this case science with religion. Unbelievers🙂 now that is funny!

  6. M Simon says:

    Well I believe in the climate. And I pray to it every day, “Dear Climate Bless Us with warmer please.”

  7. M Simon says:

    Joe Public says:
    June 13, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Well don’t forget the moral issue of cannabis medicine. And as a religious sacrament. The holy anointing oil.

    Hebrew Etymology

  8. The pope’s encyclical was covered in this morning’s BBC Radio 4 programme ‘Sunday’. Mark Morano was on for the sceptical view, but I couldn’t bear to listen to talk of “the scientific consensus”.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Newspapers like the Guardian that seem determined to have a go at anyone who doesn’t swallow the IPCC line whole, and use inflammatory language to do so, could leave themselves open to complaints to the The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

    http://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html

  10. M Simon says:

    OB,

    “Of course we are part of the independent press. We answer to the government.”

    And I’m not a big fan of the Guardian.

    [reply] not many people are😉

  11. oldbrew says:

    The Vatican doesn’t have a great record in science matters…

    Earth Moves for Vatican in Galileo Case
    November 01, 1992
    ‘The Roman Catholic Church has admitted to erring these past 359 years in formally condemning Galileo Galilei for entertaining scientific truths it long denounced as against-the-Scriptures heresy.’
    http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-01/news/mn-1827_1_galileo-galilei

    “The underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the message of faith,” the Pope noted. “One day we may find ourselves in a similar situation, which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and of the limits of their own competencies.” [bold added]

    And here we are😐 – facing another 359 years of dodgy dogma?

  12. ren says:

    A strong jet stream in the lower stratosphere shows that El Niño is weakening and monsoon increases.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-149.99,2.10,454

  13. ren says:

    Wind speeds due to the impact of the polar vortex. Here, the height of 27 km.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-207.49,1.51,344

  14. ren says:

    You can see further cooling of the North Atlantic. Cool in Spain. In Greenland and Scandinavia mountains going to snow.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-74.92,59.85,688

  15. ren says:


    The first two absorption bands of CO 2 is approx. 2μm and 2,8μm (Figure 2). This radiation emitted by the sun. The earth does not emit waves in this regard. Absorbing agents reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface in these bands, which play a role similar to ozone and ultraviolet absorber protects the Earth from an excess of these emissions. The amount of energy that can absorb CO2 in these areas can be estimated at around 4% of the total capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
    Another extent of absorption of CO 2 is 4 – 4,5μm. The earth emits a minimal amount of radiation. These are the waves on the border of frequency emitted by the planet’s surface. Partly scope of this goes beyond earthly emissions. The graphs depicting the amount of radiation emitted by the Earth, we see an almost horizontal line by selecting the emission of energy at this wavelength. In this range, carbon dioxide absorbs about 8% of the total amount of infrared which is able to absorb. Due to the fact that the absorption in this band is only a fraction of CO 2 absorption capacity, and also extremely small is the same infrared source at this frequency can not be considered the significance of the absorption climate because it is the interaction too slim and perhaps trace.
    Fourth clearly indicated on said graph (Figure 2), an absorption band, the scope of the biggest infrared absorption by carbon dioxide. It includes a wavelength of about 14μm to 18μm, so it is very large, and in addition to a large amount of radiation – in this field is absorbed approx. 88% of the total absorbed by CO 2 radiation. Infrared absorption peak for CO 2 falls to about 15μm, as shown in the following figure (Figure 3). It is in this fairly large absorption band environmentalists see their greatest source of influence on the climate. It does not surprise me, personally, because they have to search some data to confirm their theories. It seems that this is the proof – a large band of infrared absorption, but again this is proof perverse. What matters is because no amount of radiation, but its quality, that is the real power of influence. We are dealing here with radiation of high wavelength, and the greater the wavelength the less energy. By means of such radiation will not change in any significant way temperature, and partly because these wavelengths are not applicable in heating. There frequencies used bordering with visible light (from 0,78μm) and slightly larger wavelength, but those larger than 10μm did not play a role here (although they are present there, because the filaments of infrared radiators emit large range of wavelengths). Devoted by the atmosphere part of such radiation is certainly not lead to a significant increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and will not increase the average temperature of the atmosphere.
    Known, perverse slogan of environmentalists is the identification of these wavelengths from the microwave and creating associations with microwave, which is a complete mistake, calculated on the ignorance of readers. The difference between microwaves and infrared is in fact fundamental. Microwaves, is composed of electron radiation, and infrared light particles or photons – particles of very different energy. Their frequency of overlap, as is the case with many other types of radiation, but their essence is fundamentally different.