Global Warming: Why is there such a huge gap between public opinion and scientific consensus?

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Martin
The truth of the matter is that when it comes to science, people are remarkably stupid. About 45% of Americans think humans were created as they are in the last 10000 years

You're a prime example of the kind of people who jump on these bandwagons. You have such an insecurity complex that you will take up any assertion that can assume a "scientific" and therefore factual superiority over other people. It makes you feel smarter.

A large percentage of scientists ARE religeous and can be so without contradiction. Did your head just aspoded? I'll give you a few minutes......



...........

...


.........................


......



.............................
..................

Now as to your poor argument. Asserting that people are incredulous about the global warming hype for the same reasons they believe in Intelligent Design is fallacious. If anything, your willingness to blindly leap onto the bandwagon should tell you something about the level of your healthy skepticism. Without the knowledge and intense research to form an opinion, you're just a sheep.....the very kind of person you disparage.

 

[SampSon]

Martin is not only an elitest, he's a Canadian elitest from Toronto (aka. center of the universe), far worse!

Hey martin, did you read Acanthus' post? He is far more versed in the topic than you, and he isn't being a petty tool who is dragging this thread on with useless arguements (like how I referenced your first post in this thread?). I know it's hard not to be an elitest from toronto when thats exactly what you're being in this thread, but really, arn't you ready to give it up? You're far off topic by turning this into a regligion/human understand of religion thread and really not making any valid points that are on topic.

I don't venture into P&N, primarily because it's just not worth the effort, but I can tell that you are that guy, the far left elitest from Toronto who is without a doubt better than everyone else. That's cool, I have plenty of friends in TO like that, all I know is that bush is always on their mind.

Back on topic, please go read Acanthus' post and tell me FOR CERTAIN that global warming is 100% abosolutely our (humans) fault.

 

[DrPizza]

You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that global warming is going on. Wake up people! Even in Sampson's last post, he seems to agree that there is global warming. The issue is the degree to which humans are at fault. Nonetheless, very very few qualified scientists dismiss global warming as less than fact. However, roughly 50% of news about global warming says it is occurring and 50% says it isn't.

Regardless, we have a satellite sitting in storage... it's all built and ready to be launched toward one of the Lagrangian points (L3? I've forgotten which one.) It would answer definitively, once and for all, whether global warming is occuring or not. However, funding for the project was cut in favor of "more important projects." And, with Bush as our wonderful leader, he'd rather see humans go back to the moon and Mars (wtf for??!) than real science being studied.

It looks like pressure from Bush and company is helping to keep the issue of global warming at least somewhat debatable - when in reality, it could be answered with certainty by the DSCOVR satellite. And, rather than telling the public that "I've pressured NASA to stop the project in its tracks," the public hears "we're going back to the moon and maybe to Mars. Yeeeehaaaaa." In reality, there's virtually no scientific reason for manned moon or mars missions. And, I can't see how the heck the expense of the international space station was ever justified, when the same money could have been spent on much more meaningful science. What's the most important objective of the international space station? Answer: to learn how to work together with other nations. Wtf?!! Meaningful science?? Hardly.

Oh, read about the satellite: BBC
You can search for the DSCOVR satellite yourself if you want more sources.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Martin is not only an elitest, he's a Canadian elitest from Toronto (aka. center of the universe), far worse!

Hey martin, did you read Acanthus' post? He is far more versed in the topic than you, and he isn't being a petty tool who is dragging this thread on with useless arguements (like how I referenced your first post in this thread?). I know it's hard not to be an elitest from toronto when thats exactly what you're being in this thread, but really, arn't you ready to give it up? You're far off topic by turning this into a regligion/human understand of religion thread and really not making any valid points that are on topic.

I don't venture into P&N, primarily because it's just not worth the effort, but I can tell that you are that guy, the far left elitest from Toronto who is without a doubt better than everyone else. That's cool, I have plenty of friends in TO like that, all I know is that bush is always on their mind.

Back on topic, please go read Acanthus' post and tell me FOR CERTAIN that global warming is 100% abosolutely our (humans) fault.

First, let me say that this is a really pathetic attempt at an insult. What's your next one going to be, a 'your mom' joke?


Now let's look at your post

So why is it that we are not allowed to question this scientific body and its findings on "global warming"?

And now, look at the "two debates" description I posted above

And you have to remember that there's two debates: the actual one where discussion centres around what the impact will be and what we should be doing and the other one (like this and other ATOT ones) where the central issue is "Is it a vast conspiracy or not".

And now lets look at some of ATOT's wisdom...

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Governments grant the funding. Who gets the funding? Hint: It's not the guy looking for sun spots or chasing any other theory that doesn't point the finger squarely at us.

"Well, looks like our reports on Global Warming have found that it's nothing to worry about and nothing further to study...so go ahead and stop our funding now so that we don't have jobs!"

I see no incentives there.......

don't forget Kyoto was just a world conspiracy to for a global tax/wealth redistribution scheme (tax the biggest polluter, the US, and redistribute to the rest of the world).

Originally posted by: Amused
Because i the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

Because the environmental movement has completely destroyed it's credibility by allowing itself to be taken over by anti-capitalist activists and extremists.

Originally posted by: jjones
Let me see. I heard day in and day out about the scientific reality of the coming ice age back in the 70s and we all know where that went. Now it's the opposite. I'll tell you what, when scientists can accurately predict the weather, then I'll listen to them again about weather related issues.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

Originally posted by: FoBoT
because those scientists are part of the anti-technology environmentalist whacko movement

Originally posted by: JS80
there is no scientific consensus. there are plenty of scientists that know this is political bullshvt.

... and these are just from the first page. What I see is lies, conspiracy theories, comically over-the-top biases and extreme cynicism, but no "questioning the scientific body and its findings". Of course I happen to think that the questioning has to involve science and at least try to provide an alternate theory that explains the observations, but I guess that must be my 'elitism'.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that global warming is going on. Wake up people! Even in Sampson's last post, he seems to agree that there is global warming. The issue is the degree to which humans are at fault. Nonetheless, very very few qualified scientists dismiss global warming as less than fact. However, roughly 50% of news about global warming says it is occurring and 50% says it isn't.

Regardless, we have a satellite sitting in storage... it's all built and ready to be launched toward one of the Lagrangian points (L3? I've forgotten which one.) It would answer definitively, once and for all, whether global warming is occuring or not. However, funding for the project was cut in favor of "more important projects." And, with Bush as our wonderful leader, he'd rather see humans go back to the moon and Mars (wtf for??!) than real science being studied.

It looks like pressure from Bush and company is helping to keep the issue of global warming at least somewhat debatable - when in reality, it could be answered with certainty by the DSCOVR satellite. And, rather than telling the public that "I've pressured NASA to stop the project in its tracks," the public hears "we're going back to the moon and maybe to Mars. Yeeeehaaaaa." In reality, there's virtually no scientific reason for manned moon or mars missions. And, I can't see how the heck the expense of the international space station was ever justified, when the same money could have been spent on much more meaningful science. What's the most important objective of the international space station? Answer: to learn how to work together with other nations. Wtf?!! Meaningful science?? Hardly.

Oh, read about the satellite: BBC
You can search for the DSCOVR satellite yourself if you want more sources.

Dr., the jury is still out. Some of the remote sensing sat data for the last two years may be showing cooler temps than the previous years based on ocean temps. solar radiation was definitely up before then. The problem is try to fit short term data as a trend. And we are not sure if we are just in a recovery from the Little Ice Age instead of a warming period. If Mann, et al had not purposely skewed the data to get the hockey stick results, it would be a better discussion. But with those fraudulant results, and everyone requoting them, this goes as it does in this thread.

 

[SampSon]

First, let me say that this is a really pathetic attempt at an insult. What's your next one going to be, a 'your mom' joke?


Now let's look at your post

It's not an insult, I really don't want to stoop to your level where you can beat me very handily. I just call it as I see it chief, just like you claim do. If you take it as an insult, that's because it hits close to the mark. I really don't care to hear anymore of your ridiculous blather and cherry picking of the quotes in this thread. You're simply coming off as a pricky little elitest who never really has anything worthwhile to say in this thread.

You really havn't offered much in this thread except sarcasm, insults, links to summary documents you havn't read or lack the knowledge to comprehend them, and largely unfounded claims of your superior "scientific literacy". You do exactly what you claim is so petty and arrogant in this thread.

What I see is lies, conspiracy theories, comically over-the-top biases and extreme cynicism, but no "questioning the scientific body and its findings". Of course I happen to think that the questioning has to involve science and at least try to provide an alternate theory that explains the observations, but I guess that must be my 'elitism'.

So you must have been reading your posts in this thread as well when you came to that conclusion. One has to look no further than your first post to see how glaring obvious that is.

Since you are so blindingly intelligent and possess "scientific literacy" beyond what anyone on this forum can even begin to dream of, why don't you question the scientific body and its findings, offer some decent opinions and mabey type up a mildly productive post for once. Going on google and searching for documents that relate to the topic doesn't count. Any monkey can use google and come off as if they have a clue of what they are talking about, that's the largest problem we have with "debates" now and you are just as guilty as everyone else of doing that.

Why don't you give us your opinion on the topic instead of merely taking one scientific document and taking it as absolute fact? You don't even bother to offer an opinion or an attempt at objective analyzation of the current body of knowledge on the topic of "GW". You simply throw these links and documents around while your opinion is firmly set in concrete. Way to be, here is your quote "Of course I happen to think that the questioning has to involve science and at least try to provide an alternate theory that explains the observations". So you know for certain GW exists in one breath, but then you need further objective scientific studies? Your opinion sways so easily. If the "scientific community" came out next week and said that they were all wrong and GW doesn't exist you would blather on with support of the new findings. So predictable.

The reality is that you really have nothing to offer except insults, specifically directed at Americans (so painfully typical douch bag Canadian), cynicism, links to random documents you don't understand and a raging ego. You fit perfectly into a stereotype, just like many other people you claim are dumb beyond reprieve. Pot to kettle, you're black, jackass.

 

[JS80]

wow martin, you are truly a dbag.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
I haven't really thought about it. I mean, I think (given my limited knowledge on the matter) that it exists, but I don't know or care why. Chances are it won't affect me during my lifetime. And balls to everyone alive after I die.

Hahaha this literally made me laugh out loud....

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
1. I don't deny that humans have an effect on the climate.
2. I do deny that the effect we have is as significant as some would have you believe.

There's that infamous middle ground I've heard about.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SampSon

First, let me say that this is a really pathetic attempt at an insult. What's your next one going to be, a 'your mom' joke?


Now let's look at your post

It's not an insult, I really don't want to stoop to your level where you can beat me very handily. I just call it as I see it chief, just like you claim do. If you take it as an insult, that's because it hits close to the mark. I really don't care to hear anymore of your ridiculous blather and cherry picking of the quotes in this thread. You're simply coming off as a pricky little elitest who never really has anything worthwhile to say in this thread.

You really havn't offered much in this thread except sarcasm, insults, links to summary documents you havn't read or lack the knowledge to comprehend them, and largely unfounded claims of your superior "scientific literacy". You do exactly what you claim is so petty and arrogant in this thread.

In this thread? Yeah, that's true - because I learned my lesson from last time. I started a thread a few months ago on GW and in the OP I pointed out a few things (no, no links to reports, just graphs and such) and many of the responses were much the same "it bullshit because Greenpeace says its happening", "scientists are looking for funding", "science has been wrong before" etc etc. The jewel of the thread was a guy saying ice core samples were bullshit because we don't know the temperature in the year 396446BC and in any case the earth my not be that old. The lesson was pretty clear - posting anything reasonable is futile and a waste of time.

But please, prove me wrong: give me a strategy one can use to get through to a cynical sceptic(not GW in particular - just a general outline). I'll save you some time: there isn't one. Anything I (or anyone else ) say can be invalidated (in the cynic's mind) by using a combination of "scientists are looking for funding" and "science has been wrong before". So yes, posting anything useful is completely futile.

 

[erickj92]

Scientists and regular people are way different...I cant answer you question but one time in 8th grade my dad and my cience teacher got in a big argument about the amount of oil left in the eath....

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

4. Carbon Dioxide: This is a greenhouse gas, but its not as potent as others. Furthermore whats the carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere? 0.0360%. Studies have shown that the temperature change in the troposphere, which should be of greater magnitude than at the surface of the earth if carbon dioxide really does increase global temperature, has not increased by any measurable amount. Just an odd aside, if carbon dioxide is so effecient at trapping solar radiation, why is the average temperature of Mars -50C, its atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide.

.

The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. It is the densest layer of the atmosphere and contains approximately 75% of the mass of the atmosphere and almost all the water vapor and aerosol.

I don't know what you are talking about- temperature readings come from the troposphere, and ice cores are taken for air and water samples from the troposphere.

http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

Early in its history, Mars was much more like Earth. As with Earth almost all of its carbon dioxide was used up to form carbonate rocks. But lacking the Earth's plate tectonics, Mars is unable to recycle any of this carbon dioxide back into its atmosphere and so cannot sustain a significant greenhouse effect. The surface of Mars is therefore much colder than the Earth would be at that distance from the Sun.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere composed mostly of the tiny amount of remaining carbon dioxide (95.3%) plus nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%) and traces of oxygen (0.15%) and water (0.03%). The average pressure on the surface of Mars is only about 7 millibars (less than 1% of Earth's), but it varies greatly with altitude from almost 9 millibars in the deepest basins to about 1 millibar at the top of Olympus Mons. But it is thick enough to support very strong winds and vast dust storms that on occasion engulf the entire planet for months. Mars' thin atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect but it is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees (K); much less than what we see on Venus and Earth.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Acanthus

4. Carbon Dioxide: This is a greenhouse gas, but its not as potent as others. Furthermore whats the carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere? 0.0360%. Studies have shown that the temperature change in the troposphere, which should be of greater magnitude than at the surface of the earth if carbon dioxide really does increase global temperature, has not increased by any measurable amount. Just an odd aside, if carbon dioxide is so effecient at trapping solar radiation, why is the average temperature of Mars -50C, its atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide.

.

The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. It is the densest layer of the atmosphere and contains approximately 75% of the mass of the atmosphere and almost all the water vapor and aerosol.

I don't know what you are talking about- temperature readings come from the troposphere, and ice cores are taken for air and water samples from the troposphere.

http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

Early in its history, Mars was much more like Earth. As with Earth almost all of its carbon dioxide was used up to form carbonate rocks. But lacking the Earth's plate tectonics, Mars is unable to recycle any of this carbon dioxide back into its atmosphere and so cannot sustain a significant greenhouse effect. The surface of Mars is therefore much colder than the Earth would be at that distance from the Sun.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere composed mostly of the tiny amount of remaining carbon dioxide (95.3%) plus nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%) and traces of oxygen (0.15%) and water (0.03%). The average pressure on the surface of Mars is only about 7 millibars (less than 1% of Earth's), but it varies greatly with altitude from almost 9 millibars in the deepest basins to about 1 millibar at the top of Olympus Mons. But it is thick enough to support very strong winds and vast dust storms that on occasion engulf the entire planet for months. Mars' thin atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect but it is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees (K); much less than what we see on Venus and Earth.

This is all based on the assumption that you need carbon dioxide in order to warm a planet. Coicidentally, it's also further from the sun. That might do it

Also, there is no reference at all to where this information came from.

The atmosphere is far less dence, but it also contains a ~2700 fold increase in Carbon Dioxide concetration.

Even moreso, if the pressure is so different in the valleys vs the mountaintops shouldnt there be substantial localized warming in the valleys in sunny periods?

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: SampSon

The reality is that you really have nothing to offer except insults, specifically directed at Americans (so painfully typical douch bag Canadian)

I agree with your entire post, except as a Canadian does not fall into this category, I would substitute "so painfully typical douch bag Canadian" with "so painfully typical douch bag Torontonian".

Thanks

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Topic Title: Global Warming:

Why is there such a huge gap between public opinion and scientific consensus?

The scientific consensus on global warming is unequivocal. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations have agreed that the Earth is warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions and that these effects are caused by humans.

That bold part seems to be where the public debate lies (most people believe the world is heating but many believe that it is not attributable to people, ie the warming is part of a natural cycle).

Now, this thread isn't intended as a debate about global warming/climate change.

I'm curious about why there is so much debate about the issue in the public arena, while there is an almost total consensus in the scientific community.

What makes average Joe think that he knows more about the issue than thousands of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding it?

The answer is in my Global warming thread in P&N. There you will find articles that show the Oil Companies are paying thousands of people to push their oil only agenda online and offline. AT is clearly full of these paid shills.

Just a reminder to ATOT, green house gases DO NOT and IS NOT the cause for global warming. The source that is causing global warming is still from an unknown. CO2 from burning fossil fuels equals around 5% of the CO2 emissions, and CO2 comprises around 5% of the greenhouse gasses.

Rotting of organic materials produces more CO2 than fossil fuels. We need to look at trash reduction first or maybe determine what causes the warming in the first place before we go chasing after one of the effects from global warming.

I want to see the source that states global warming is caused only by CO2 from fossil fuels or from CO2 for that matter.

 

[JS80]

correlation =/= causation

it's possible that co2 rises as temps rise

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: JS80
correlation =/= causation

it's possible that co2 rises as temps rise

It has been proven that CO2 levels lag temperature.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: JS80
correlation =/= causation

it's possible that co2 rises as temps rise

It has been proven that CO2 levels lag temperature.

you mean al gore manipulated that chart in his presentation to make it seem like the other way around?!?!?! no wei!

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Canai
People are dumb, I mean, we reelected bush for crying out loud.

Herd mentality for the loss

edit: and by that statement, I mean that people cannot see past the lies that are fed to them by those they thought could be trusted.

We actually didn't re-elect bush. Diebold did.


The fact that environmental protection has never been a conservative agenda tells you just how much integrity and accountability means to the pseudo-christian conservatives in this country.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Canai
People are dumb, I mean, we reelected bush for crying out loud.

Herd mentality for the loss

edit: and by that statement, I mean that people cannot see past the lies that are fed to them by those they thought could be trusted.

We actually didn't re-elect bush. Diebold did.


The fact that environmental protection has never been a conservative agenda tells you just how much integrity and accountability means to the pseudo-christian conservatives in this country.

Actually, that's not true at all. There have been many conservative conservationists. Conservatives just did not buy into the leftist hippie environmental movement.

It's actually sad that many conservationist organizations I volunteered for as a scout when I was a teen have now been over run with radical anti-capitalist/anti-industrial leftists.

 

[CryHavoc]

There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by manmade emmisions.

Consider how many scientists wanted their names disassociated with the UN panel after they learned that their reports were misreported.

Additionally, consider HOW MUCH MONEY is being poured into the Global warming issue. Its HUGE business now and noone involved with this new religion wants to loose those funds that pay for their salaries, studies, research, etc.

When Global warming goes the way of the Global cooling hysteria of the 1970's, many people are going to look stupid.

Do any of you remember when scientists were saying that the climate is cooling off and we are heading towards a new mini ice age? Look it up.

Also, did anyone watch that BBC documentary regarding global warming.

Its been shown based on scientific data/research, that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by nearly 300 years. So as temps go up, CO2 levels increase. Not the other way around as GORE would like you to believe.

Also anyone read STATE OF FEAR by Michael Chrichton?
although the story is fictitional, the facts and references are not.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: CryHavoc


Its been shown based on scientific data/research, that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by nearly 300 years. So as temps go up, CO2 levels increase. Not the other way around as GORE would like you to believe..

WTF are you talking about??

 

[FleshLight]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: CryHavoc


Its been shown based on scientific data/research, that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by nearly 300 years. So as temps go up, CO2 levels increase. Not the other way around as GORE would like you to believe..

WTF are you talking about??

It should be the other way around. As [CO2] increases, more longwave radiation is retained. However it is not an instantaneous correlation due to the mean residence time of CO2 being around 20 years or so. Thus it would be ~20 years before realizing the temperature effects of CO2 released today.

 

[CryHavoc]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: CryHavoc


Its been shown based on scientific data/research, that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by nearly 300 years. So as temps go up, CO2 levels increase. Not the other way around as GORE would like you to believe..

WTF are you talking about??

Watch the whole video and keep an open mind to both sides of the argument.

 

[CryHavoc]

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: CryHavoc


Its been shown based on scientific data/research, that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by nearly 300 years. So as temps go up, CO2 levels increase. Not the other way around as GORE would like you to believe..

WTF are you talking about??

It should be the other way around. As [CO2] increases, more longwave radiation is retained. However it is not an instantaneous correlation due to the mean residence time of CO2 being around 20 years or so. Thus it would be ~20 years before realizing the temperature effects of CO2 released today.

again, the whole CO2 thing is misunderstood.

Do you realize that CO2 levels in our atmosphere account for less than 1 percent of the total gases?

The Major contributor to global warming are clouds. Not CO2.

Clouds retain the heat.

Did you also know that the amount of CO2 put out by volcanoes active and semi active accounts for the largest source of CO2. You want to know the second largest contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere? The oceans.

Man made CO2 is very very small in comparison.

Another fact. It was cited in many studies and Gore's movie that the glacial melting of Kilimenjaro glaciers is attributed to warming temperatures due to global warming.

well thats just wrong. The explanation IS entirely man made, but not man made global warming.

Here's the deal. As the forests and other vegetation have been cleared from the base of the mountain, the air flowing up has gotten dryer. The forests and other vegetation has the effect of adding moisture to the air which then freezes as it reaches the higher elevations on the mountain. But since man has cleared the forests around the mountain, the air is significantly dryer.

And the whole Ross Ice Shelf calving thats often cited as direct proof of global warming has been going on for thousands of years. Did you know that as a whole, the continent of Antarctica is gaining more ice? The thickness of ice as a whole is growing.
Remember Antarctica IS a continent and subject to different climates just as any continent has climate differences. The southern US is warmer in the winter than the midwest isn't it? Florida might be 80 degrees in the winter whereas chicago is sub freezing

Again, for those who were not around, or were mere babes in the 70's should look up ALL THAT scientific proof that the earth was heading towards a mini ice age. What happened to that!!!

All one has to do is to keep an open mind, do their own research when they have questions, and decide for themselves.

I do think we should reduce emissions somewhat, have cleaner burning cars, use alternative energy resources whenever possible, but I don't believe in the mass hysteria that sweeping the planet.

C'mon, did you see the latest report from one scientist?? He stated that by the end of this century, billions would have been killed off due to global warming and that humans will be mating only in the arctic. Please...

here is the story

oh and Al Gore is set to go before a panel hearing tomorrow morning in WA DC to answer questions from supporters and detractors alike in congress.

this should be interesting.

Oh and yes, I understand that I've been branded a heretic by the Church of Global warming (reformed).