Arctic scientist under investigation

[Orogeny]

These are all good points, but these caveats must also be strictly applied to those scientists who deny the climate change research. Especially to those who are being paid by special interests to cast doubt among the public in order to undermine populist government environmental policies and regulations.

As long as the data is good and the conclusions are sound, I don’t care who pays for the research.

You can tell that conservatives are loosing the scientific debate when they begin to use the tactic of denying that climate change is a problem by attacking “liberal” solutions to it.

You have actually just identified the entire debate. This is all politics. There is good science on both sides, but unfortunately even the scientists have fallen into the political debate.

This is equivalent to denying that teen pregnancy is a problem by attacking the efforts of Planned Parenthood to promote the use of contraception. Catholics may disagree with PP’s solution, point out how it would make the problem worse, and offer our own solutions, but to deny that the problem exists based on our disagreement with PP’s response to it would be the height of irresponsibility. The same is true of the climate change problem.

And the liberal response is that teen pregnancy is unavoidable and therefore PP should give out free contraception even if the teen’s parents object. To deny that the approach is also problematic based on the fact that teen pregnancy exists would be the height of irresponsibility.

See, when one plays politics, it can go both ways. I don’t know of many (any?) one who attacks PP because they deny that teen pregancy is a problem.

Finally, Catholics must understand that Pope Benedict XVI and scientists from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences both state unequivocally that Global Warming/Climate Change is a real problem facing the world and are actively crafting the appropriate Catholic response to the crisis. Catholics who oppose the Church in this regard and question the Pope’s judgement must explain why they are taking such a radical stance. They must demonstrate that they are better equipped than our Church leaders to critically evaluate the evidence, understand its implications for future generations, and craft a response in accord with Catholic Social Doctrine.

What does the Pope have to say about contraceptives and abortion? Now apply that to your PP example above.

So far, nothing on this forum has convinced me that those who deny the reality of global climate change are doing anything more than repeating right-wing propaganda. Since that is the case, I will stick with the Pope.

I accept that global climate change is happening. I even accept that man is likely contributing to it. I don’t accept that we can do anything about it without destroying our economy. What would those that depend on the government for susbsistence do without that help?

You may stick with the Pope on this, but what about on contraception and abortion?

Peace

Tim

 

[bellasbane]

As long as the data is good and the conclusions are sound, I don’t care who pays for the research.

That is naive. Scientists are perfectly capable of being bought and it is easy to “lie with statistics” - Note my comparison to the tobacco industry.

You have actually just identified the entire debate. This is all politics. There is good science on both sides, but unfortunately even the scientists have fallen into the political debate.

If you understood my post, you would realize that you are accusing the Holy See of being political. You claiming that the arguments of the Pope are politically inspired and are not truly based on his understanding of the research and his interpretation of Catholic Social Doctrine. The only other alternative is that he has been duped by the climate change extremists. I find any suggestion that either alternative might be the case to be highly offensive - that’s my Catholic bias, and I will not apologize for it.

And the liberal response is that teen pregnancy is unavoidable and therefore PP should give out free contraception even if the teen’s parents object. To deny that the approach is also problematic based on the fact that teen pregnancy exists would be the height of irresponsibility.

See, when one plays politics, it can go both ways. I don’t know of many (any?) one who attacks PP because they deny that teen pregancy is a problem.What does the Pope have to say about contraceptives and abortion? Now apply that to your PP example above.I accept that global climate change is happening. I even accept that man is likely contributing to it. I don’t accept that we can do anything about it without destroying our economy. What would those that depend on the government for susbsistence do without that help?

You may stick with the Pope on this, but what about on contraception and abortion?

Peace

Tim

My references to contraception was made to illustrate a point about the tactic of denying the reality of a problem by attacking a “liberal” response to the problem. The validity of the response is irrelevant to the reality of the problem. I used the example of PP in order to highlight the absurdity and irresponsibility of such a tactic in the context of a “problem” we all understand quite well; i.e., teen pregnancy. It is called analogical reasoning. Go back and read my post and maybe you will better understand the point I am trying to make.

Peace

 

[kimmielittle]

The carbon-based energy industry is massive - far bigger than “big tobacco”. Have people forgotten how tobacco industry “scientists” claimed for years that nicotine was not addictive and cigarette smoking was not “proven” to cause cancer? Given our experience with the tobacco industry, it is reasonable to assume that the “big oil” or “big gas” or “big coal” industries are employing “scientists” for the same purpose: to continue to make profits and avoid liability for their product. The motivations are exactly the same. Only a fool would fail to learn from the past and blindly accept the “facts” and “research” that are bankrolled by the energy industry.

Who do you think funded CRU ?

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council,** British Petroleum,** Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health,** Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),**** Eastern Electricity**, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),** Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman**, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

Mr Singer received a total of $20,000 - Mr Lindzen had actually accepted a total of $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from such interests on the day he ceased such activities two decades ago.

I’ll ask you, Cause no one has been willing to give an honest answer to me, so far.

How does BIG Oil money spent by Mr Singer or Mr Lindzen ** For research and travel etc ** Differ from CRU - Mr Jones et at for research and travel etc?

soros.org/resources/artic…a_complete.pdf

Quote:media policy ($1,060,000); and “politicization of science ($720,000)”.

Is what the Soros organization, itself, calls the money it provided** Mr James Hansen.** Found within the PDF on page 143 ]

On page 123 of the PDF we find this…
Quote:“The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.”.

Mr Hansen calls it “legal and media advice”

newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-go…l-george-soros

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh…-annual-report
BUT from Soros org own mouth, the money was used to change NASA Policy

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued"

You can tell that conservatives are loosing the scientific debate when they begin to use the tactic of denying that climate change is a problem by attacking “liberal” solutions to it.

I didn’t know there was a “Solution” to climate change. Care to give us an example of how we can mitigate even 1C of temperature?

Finally, Catholics must understand that Pope Benedict XVI and scientists from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Why would Catholics give an audience to Atheist TO Promote a Catholic Response, please?

A report I gave:

AN investigation into the Pontifical Academy of Science Report. PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf
vatican.va/roman_curia/po…0511_final.pdf

Things we know.

We know this working group was called by M. Sánchez Sorondo.
We know the “workshop” lasted 2 whole days.
This suggest preconceived ideas / ideals.

Quote:Report authors met at the Vatican from April 2 to April 4, 2011 under the invitation of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of the pontifical academy. The report was issued by the Vatican and will be presented to Pope Benedict XVI.

sciencedaily.com/releases…0506093116.htm

We know:
It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper

We can tell this by no citations to claims made within the paper. NONE

As a religious paper for guiding Catholic / Christians.

Contact was made to one of the Pontifical Academy of Science Members to present a Catholic / Christian response.

That person is P.J. Crutzen.

We know Mr Crutzen is the Lead author by his use of verbiage throughout. Such as the word “Anthropocene”. A word he has been trying to coin. economist.com/node/18741749

By Mr Crutzen’s definition “Anthropocene” equals “A Man Made World” Remember this ]

Being a “religious” response not a scientific paper ] one has to question:
Is it wise to sign your name to a religious response paper, as did Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo - when the lead Author is Atheist?

In fact Mr Crutzen seems to have radical associations with anti- Catholic / Christian beliefs.

He is a signer according to American Humanist Association, of Their Manifestos
americanhumanist.org/syst…spirations.pdf

The American Humanist Association has radical views of Catholicism / Christians.

examiner.com/atheism-in-n…ndalized-again

skepdic.com/atheistbus.html

Granted Mr Crutzen’s associations would not be cause to dismiss his Science - BUT this is NOT a Scientific Paper - It lacks any Citations for claims - and peer review in science isn’t done in a vacuum, as one here tries to insinuate.

Mr Crutzen, because of his chosen associations, AND this being a “Religious Call to Conscience” paper - FOR Catholics / Christians need not be my spiritual guide.

We know it was closed meetings with invited signatures of vested interests.
R. Pachauri ,For one, of India and IPCC fame. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

We are also told hikers took part / signed.

We can also see that Mr. Crutzen chose co writers of other papers in agreement with his views. by doing a little research ]…V. Ramanathan - Another co-lead comes to mind, but there are others.

This was indeed carried out / conceived in a Vacuum.

IMO The Pontifical Academy of Science gave an open door to Mr Crutzen and his mates. Allowing a misleading piece of propaganda to emerge.

Is this the first time the Pontifical Academy of Science failed Catholics?
On Genetic Modified Foods. catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/1004910.htm
Quote:Most of the 40 participants were longtime supporters of using modified crops for boosting food production and creating new sources of energy from nonfood crops.

A number of participants have invented genetically modified foodstuffs or work for companies that sell genetically modified seeds.

There also were at least four speakers who have ties to the U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto, which created a synthetic bovine growth hormone to boost cow milk production as well as insect- and herbicide-resistant seeds.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the pro-GM statement “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”.

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued:

THE PDF is here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf

MY Report is here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526040&page=4

Another Part of the report

Here I called it “propaganda”

Propaganda is the correct word. If you think it’s not - I ask you to prove it isn’t.
Before you foolishly try - let me ask where do you think the word comes from?

Once again, I’ll do your research for you.
It comes from the Catholic Faith.
In FACT the Catholic Church has the oldest Ministry of “Propaganda” known. It is called Congregation of Propaganda Fide, established by Pope Gregory XV in 1622.

It is to used to “Propagate the faith”.

You don’t seem to have an argument that this is a Religious Paper and not a Scientific one.

BEING a Religious paper used to propagate the faith ] - I have EVERY RIGHT to question the “wisdom” of an Atheist “propagating” my faith. IMO it remains a “misleading piece of propaganda”.

If I wanted to point to errors which I need not do ] I would point to the most obvious .
It calls the world to reduce by 50% to protect the Himalayas.The condition of the Himalayas is because of Regional India mostly ] poor air standards Black soot - aerosols emissions ].The Himalayas could see “protection” almost immediately IF India reduced its Black Soot.

it can be found here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526040&page=3

[So far, nothing on this forum has convinced me that those who deny the reality of global climate change are doing anything more than repeating right-wing propaganda. Since that is the case, I will stick with the Pope.

Actually, we aren’t trying to convince you.

What exactly has the Holy Father embraced? Good stewardship - Nothing more.

Has He embraced the hypothesis of AGW OR IT’s Schemes.?

Climate Changes - Climate Has Always Changed…AND guess what NO one has come up with / stated… the IDEAL Temperature.
[/quote]

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks for all your research Kimmie. I learn a lot from you.

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued On the Pontifical Paper

An “opinion editorial” issued by The Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Used to propagate move ] the faith.

If it isn’t a scientific paper It doesn’t meet the criteria - lack of citations - lack of data used - lack of transparency of sources ]…It’s what?

AND a somewhat …mysterious use of claims.

Most notable the call for the world to decrease 50% to protect the Himalayas… A somewhat dubious repeat of the IPCC claims - expressly held by R.K. Pachauri ( A CO-Writer of this opinion-editorial - from India - And IPCC Head ) ]

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas.

Clearly, the current snow-albedo-altering impact of B[lack ] C [arbon] wafting over the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau vastly overshadows its direct radiative warming impact, which suggests that the most logical way to strive to avert the melting of Himalayan glaciers would be to reduce Asian BC emissions, which would also have a huge positive impact on the health of people living throughout this part of the world, particularly since Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008) note that the majority of BC emissions (60%) arise from “cooking with biofuels such as wood, dung and crop residue” and from “open biomass burning (associated with deforestation and crop residue burning),” and since Venkataraman et al. (2005) note that control of BC emissions through cleaner cooking technologies alone could help in “reducing health risks to several hundred million users.”

References

Reference
Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011. Origin and radiative forcing of black carbon transported to the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 2837-2852.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526040&page=2​

AND YES Virginia it seems The Pontifical Academy has been used before as a political tool:

My complaint about using the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the GM report was this

:But the 40 or so participants listed on the academy’s website are all GM supporters, with many well known for their extreme pro-GM views or having vested interests in GMO adoption.

AND trying to pass it off to Catholics that it was

:Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Academy’s chancellor, told the Catholic News Service that the aim was to gather “an objective group of experts” in a search for “scientific clarity” on the subject.

spinwatch.org/latest-news-mainmenu-10/46-gm-industry/5283-spinwatch-condemns-vatican-gm-event-as-a-charade-by-vested-interests

powerbase.info/index.php/…ted_interests”

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks for all your research Kimmie. I learn a lot from you.

You are very welcome

It used to be easy to promote the hypothesis of AGW…NOW people who wish to defend it - need to get out of their arm-chairs and go to both sides of the issue in researching IMO

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you ALL for defending me against needless / unwarranted attacks.

 

[kimmielittle]

You should know that I applaud conservative arguments that are consistent with Catholic teaching. I have applauded many of your own arguments when you stand upon principle and are willing to criticize both the right and the left. So please, do not try to cast me as a knee-jerk anything but a knee-jerk Catholic.

Kimmie’s analysis of the “data” contradicts the analysis of the data provided by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the teachings of the Pope - that is good enough reason for me to question it’s accuracy and reliability. Here is the most recent report published by the Vatican on the issue of climate change:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf

The burden of proof is on Kimmie to refute the scientific arguments presented in this report, not the other way around. Kimmie also uses the tactic of criticizing “liberal” solutions to deny the reality of the problem and I have demonstrated why this tactic is irresponsible.

Since Kimmie has zero credentials, in “Kimmie vs. the Vatican” - I will take the Vatican.

Ahhhhhhhhh but I can read with a critical eye and mind - AND understand propaganda when I see it.

Do you wish to debate my findings on their report?

Kimmie also uses the tactic of criticizing “liberal” solutions to deny the reality of the problem and I have demonstrated why this tactic is irresponsible.

I’ll ask again Can you show us a “Solution” offered by IPCC that can mitigate even 1C of temperature? I think. I have proved using IPCC;'s own numbers / calculations Prior posts here ] It can’t be done. If it can’t be done… Where is the “liberal” solution?..for that matter Scientific / political / Catholic / Atheist / Democrat / Republican / Libertarian / Progressive “Solution” ?

I think, that burden of proof you demand is sitting in this thread. The ball is now yours.

BTW What problem have you or IPCC proved?

If it’s Climate Changes…wellll.l.l. we knew that huh?
If it’s poor conservation habits you are defining…POOR CONSERVATION is independent of AGW:shrug:

 

[kimmielittle]

This is equivalent to denying that teen pregnancy is a problem by attacking the efforts of Planned Parenthood to promote the use of contraception. Catholics may disagree with PP’s solution, point out how it would make the problem worse, and offer our own solutions, but to deny that the problem exists based on our disagreement with PP’s response to it would be the height of irresponsibility. The same is true of the climate change problem.

Logic dictates this to be a poor analogy…

Teen Pregnancy IS a PROVEN. Proven with observational evidence

IPCC has proven nothing - as a matter of fact, observational nature isn’t supporting their predictions.

You have to Identify… with evidence… a problem BEFORE attempting to solve it…That is analogical thinking

 

[bellasbane]

Logic dictates this to be a poor analogy…

Teen Pregnancy IS a PROVEN. Proven with observational evidence

IPCC has proven nothing - as a matter of fact, observational nature isn’t supporting their predictions.

You have to Identify… with evidence… a problem BEFORE attempting to solve it…That is analogical thinking

You deny the problem exists. That is a problem in and of itself, because it goes against what we are being asked to believe by the Holy Father and the Church. Do you admit that your views conflict with those of the Holy Father who calls us not to remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…

As for whether teen pregnancy itself is a “problem” is also debatable. After all, why would God give young people the capacity to procreate if he didn’t intend that they should? Physically, a young woman of 16 or 17 is probably better able to carry a baby to term without undue hardship than a woman of 39 or 40. They certainly bounce back from it faster! Back in the 1950s, the Church regularly married women as young as 18 - who had their first babies at 19. Technically, that still falls under the definition of a “teen” pregnancy. However, despite all this evidence to the contrary, you and I agree that teen pregnancy is a problem. Why? Because the weight of the scientific evidence supports that conclusion.

My analogy holds, because human systems and ecological systems are studied in essentially the same way. There is no “proof” that teen pregnancy is a problem any more than there is any “proof” that climate change is a problem, because you cannot subject either to controlled scientific experimentation, which is the only real standard of scientific “proof” that exists. The best any researcher can do is to construct a model and test how well it fits the data. Some models will be better than others, none will include every variable, because then you would have the system itself.

It took years of study for me to reach the point where I can evaluate a model of human development in relation to teen pregnancy outcomes. Based on this, I know enough to realize that evaluating climate change research is out of my league. You are a smart person, but my guess is that it is out of your league as well.

When you get your first article on climate change published in a peer reviewed journal, I will be happy to read it. Until then, I will stick with what the Pope and the Bishops teach.

Peace.

 

[estesbob]

You deny the problem exists. That is a problem in and of itself, because it goes against what we are being asked to believe by the Holy Father and the Church. Do you admit that your views conflict with those of the Holy Father who calls us not to remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…

As for whether teen pregnancy itself is a “problem” is also debatable. After all, why would God give young people the capacity to procreate if he didn’t intend that they should? Physically, a young woman of 16 or 17 is probably better able to carry a baby to term without undue hardship than a woman of 39 or 40. They certainly bounce back from it faster! Back in the 1950s, the Church regularly married women as young as 18 - who had their first babies at 19. Technically, that still falls under the definition of a “teen” pregnancy. However, despite all this evidence to the contrary, you and I agree that teen pregnancy is a problem. Why? Because the weight of the scientific evidence supports that conclusion.

My analogy holds, because human systems and ecological systems are studied in essentially the same way. There is no “proof” that teen pregnancy is a problem any more than there is any “proof” that climate change is a problem, because you cannot subject either to controlled scientific experimentation, which is the only real standard of scientific “proof” that exists. The best any researcher can do is to construct a model and test how well it fits the data. Some models will be better than others, none will include every variable, because then you would have the system itself.

It took years of study for me to reach the point where I can evaluate a model of human development in relation to teen pregnancy outcomes. Based on this, I know enough to realize that evaluating climate change research is out of my league. You are a smart person, but my guess is that it is out of your league as well.

When you get your first article on climate change published in a peer reviewed journal, I will be happy to read it. Until then, I will stick with what the Pope and the Bishops teach.

Peace.

I assume this non-reply is as admission you are unable to refute anything she posted? Could you link us to the Popes peer reviewed article on climate chNge?

 

[bellasbane]

I assume this non-reply is as admission you are unable to refute anything she posted? Could you link us to the Popes peer reviewed article on climate chNge?

The Pope employs only the best scientists!

Veerabhadran Ramanathan is a climate scientists who is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He is listed as a contributor to the “Workshop on Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” and is an author of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences report that Kimmie has chosen to poo poo as “propaganda”.

Here is his profile page as posted on the Vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/ramanathannew.html

Here is his wikipedia page - with several links and references to peer reviewed work:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerabhadran_Ramanathan

Kimmie should find this part of the Wikipedia article very interesting:

Project Surya

In March 2007, Ramanathan wrote a white paper with Balakrishnan on a potential project that will reduce air pollution and global warming.[16] Project Surya, which means Sun in Sanskrit, will use inexpensive solar cookers in rural India, and document the reductions in carbon dioxide and soot emissions. The byproducts of biofuel cooking and biomass burning are significant contributors to global warming, and the expanded use of renewable energy is expected to decrease their effects.

The burning of solid fuels causes substantial health risks as well. An estimated 440,000 deaths per year are attributed to unsanitary food preparation techniques due to aerosol exposure.[17] Over 3 billion people cook and heat their home by burning biomass such as wood and feces. The project, costing an estimated $4.5 million, will buy 3,500 cookers and impact up to 15,000 people. As of November 2008, the project has not been funded.[18]

Project Surya was soft launched in March 2009. Each household in the village of Khairatpur, Uttar Pradesh received a biomass cook stoves and a solar lamp. Surya has since received $150,000 in funding from UNEP.[19]

Here is his profile on the USCD website: ramanathan.ucsd.edu/

Here is his most recent publication (very technical): ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr177.pdf

Here is an address he gave to the American Academy in 2006 and published in their journal (less technical): amacad.org/publications/bulletin/spring2006/12globalwarming.pdf

He is the one of the Pope’s scientists - His credentials are better than Kimmie’s (no offense intended ). Why shouldn’t I believe him when he states that, “The effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is, in my opinion, the most important environmental issue facing the world today…”

Why would any Catholic choose NOT to believe him when the Pope himself has made a direct appeal for us all not to “remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…”

As a researcher and a Catholic - I do not believe I have to further justify why I choose to stick with what the Church teaches.

 

[estesbob]

The Pope employs only the best scientists!

Veerabhadran Ramanathan is a climate scientists who is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He is listed as a contributor to the “Workshop on Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” and is an author of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences report that Kimmie has chosen to poo poo as “propaganda”.

Here is his profile page as posted on the Vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/ramanathannew.html

Here is his wikipedia page - with several links and references to peer reviewed work:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerabhadran_Ramanathan

Kimmie should find this part of the Wikipedia article very interesting:

Project Surya

In March 2007, Ramanathan wrote a white paper with Balakrishnan on a potential project that will reduce air pollution and global warming.[16] Project Surya, which means Sun in Sanskrit, will use inexpensive solar cookers in rural India, and document the reductions in carbon dioxide and soot emissions. The byproducts of biofuel cooking and biomass burning are significant contributors to global warming, and the expanded use of renewable energy is expected to decrease their effects.

The burning of solid fuels causes substantial health risks as well. An estimated 440,000 deaths per year are attributed to unsanitary food preparation techniques due to aerosol exposure.[17] Over 3 billion people cook and heat their home by burning biomass such as wood and feces. The project, costing an estimated $4.5 million, will buy 3,500 cookers and impact up to 15,000 people. As of November 2008, the project has not been funded.[18]

Project Surya was soft launched in March 2009. Each household in the village of Khairatpur, Uttar Pradesh received a biomass cook stoves and a solar lamp. Surya has since received $150,000 in funding from UNEP.[19]

Here is his profile on the USCD website: ramanathan.ucsd.edu/

Here is his most recent publication (very technical): ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr177.pdf

Here is an address he gave to the American Academy in 2006 and published in their journal (less technical): amacad.org/publications/bulletin/spring2006/12globalwarming.pdf

He is the one of the Pope’s scientists - His credentials are better than Kimmie’s (no offense intended ). Why shouldn’t I believe him when he states that, “The effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is, in my opinion, the most important environmental issue facing the world today…”

Why would any Catholic choose NOT to believe him when the Pope himself has made a direct appeal for us all not to “remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…”

As a researcher and a Catholic - I do not believe I have to further justify why I choose to stick with what the Church teaches.

You still have not refuted a single thing she posted. It is interesting that you tell us we should listen to the Pope because of the Scientists be quotes but dismiss Kimmie out of hand when she quotes other scientists because she is not a scientist go figure

Btw nobody is asking you to justify anything Just asking you to respond to what she has posted without belittling her and claiming your opinions have an imprimatur from the Pope

 

[kimmielittle]

You deny the problem exists.

Here is evidence of your bias…saying I deny the problem exists.

I have over 6000 posts here at CAF…Most are in conservation / environmental threads. As regular readers can attest.

Can you provide evidence for your above statement, please?

I have never said there is not a problem to be faced by climate change…or environmental issues.

I deny the unproven hypotheses of AGW, the “sensitivity values” issued it… and it’s solutions offered by such as IPCC.

THERE is a HUGE difference.

That is a problem in and of itself, because it goes against what we are being asked to believe by the Holy Father and the Church. Do you admit that your views conflict with those of the Holy Father who calls us not to remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…

NO there is no conflict…
The Holy Father, and I are in complete agreement…we are called to be Good Stewards - AND Good Stewardship is independent…OF AGW Schemes.

WE HAVE ALWAYS been called to be Good Stewards - WAY before AGW. To ignore this - is to ignore our Christian / Catholic Heritage.

As for whether teen pregnancy itself is a “problem” is also debatable. After all, why would God give young people the capacity to procreate if he didn’t intend that they should? Physically, a young woman of 16 or 17 is probably better able to carry a baby to term without undue hardship than a woman of 39 or 40. They certainly bounce back from it faster! Back in the 1950s, the Church regularly married women as young as 18 - who had their first babies at 19. Technically, that still falls under the definition of a “teen” pregnancy. However, despite all this evidence to the contrary, you and I agree that teen pregnancy is a problem. Why? Because the weight of the scientific evidence supports that conclusion.

Actually wrong…It’s observational evidence that supports THE RESEARCH conclusions.

AGW has no observational evidence supporting it - IF it did - it wouldn’t be an unproven hypothesis.

My analogy holds, because human systems and ecological systems are studied in essentially the same way. There is no “proof” that teen pregnancy is a problem any more than there is any “proof” that climate change is a problem, because you cannot subject either to controlled scientific experimentation, which is the only real standard of scientific “proof” that exists. The best any researcher can do is to construct a model and test how well it fits the data. Some models will be better than others, none will include every variable, because then you would have the system itself.

Did you actually think this out?

It took years of study for me to reach the point where I can evaluate a model of human development in relation to teen pregnancy outcomes. Based on this, I know enough to realize that evaluating climate change research is out of my league. You are a smart person, but my guess is that it is out of your league as well.

The questions I’ve put forth about AGW…have never been answered by any Scientist…Politician…Religious.

Are you saying I’m out of my league BUT STUMP THEM?

They don’t address my questions / contentions - because my questions are critically sound against what is being sold.

 

[kimmielittle]

The Pope employs only the best scientists!

Veerabhadran Ramanathan is a climate scientists who is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He is listed as a contributor to the “Workshop on Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” and is an author of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences report that Kimmie has chosen to poo poo as “propaganda”.

Here is his profile page as posted on the Vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/ramanathannew.html

Here is his wikipedia page - with several links and references to peer reviewed work:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerabhadran_Ramanathan

Kimmie should find this part of the Wikipedia article very interesting:

Project Surya

In March 2007, Ramanathan wrote a white paper with Balakrishnan on a potential project that will reduce air pollution and global warming.[16] Project Surya, which means Sun in Sanskrit, will use inexpensive solar cookers in rural India, and document the reductions in carbon dioxide and soot emissions. The byproducts of biofuel cooking and biomass burning are significant contributors to global warming, and the expanded use of renewable energy is expected to decrease their effects.

The burning of solid fuels causes substantial health risks as well. An estimated 440,000 deaths per year are attributed to unsanitary food preparation techniques due to aerosol exposure.[17] Over 3 billion people cook and heat their home by burning biomass such as wood and feces. The project, costing an estimated $4.5 million, will buy 3,500 cookers and impact up to 15,000 people. As of November 2008, the project has not been funded.[18]

Project Surya was soft launched in March 2009. Each household in the village of Khairatpur, Uttar Pradesh received a biomass cook stoves and a solar lamp. Surya has since received $150,000 in funding from UNEP.[19]

Here is his profile on the USCD website: ramanathan.ucsd.edu/

Here is his most recent publication (very technical): ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr177.pdf

Here is an address he gave to the American Academy in 2006 and published in their journal (less technical): amacad.org/publications/bulletin/spring2006/12globalwarming.pdf

He is the one of the Pope’s scientists - His credentials are better than Kimmie’s (no offense intended ). Why shouldn’t I believe him when he states that, “The effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is, in my opinion, the most important environmental issue facing the world today…”

Why would any Catholic choose NOT to believe him when the Pope himself has made a direct appeal for us all not to “remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…”

As a researcher and a Catholic - I do not believe I have to further justify why I choose to stick with what the Church teaches.

Hmmmm P.J. Crutzen IS also a member of the Pontifical Academy…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

He was the LEAD Author.

AND self professed anti-Catholic.

Can you prove this paper to be anything more or less then an “Opinionated Article”?

You fail to make a point.

Let me ask you a question…A question I put to a “Scientist” here at CAF.

Had Singer, Lindzen, Spencer et al been given a podium from the Pontifical Academy of Science for an Opinion-editorial to propagate move ] the faith…what would you be crying?

Believe it, or not…I would have agreed with you.

 

[bellasbane]

You still have not refuted a single thing she posted. It is interesting that you tell us we should listen to the Pope because of the Scientists be quotes but dismiss Kimmie out of hand when she quotes other scientists because she is not a scientist go figure

Btw nobody is asking you to justify anything Just asking you to respond to what she has posted without belittling her and claiming your opinions have an imprimatur from the Pope

You ask for citations and I give them to you. Kimmie’s arguments are refuted in the citations. And by the way, Kimmie is not the Pope - I honestly can’t believe you would make such a comparison. However, here’s an example of how she gets it wrong. In one of her posts, she cites this article:

Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011. Origin and radiative forcing of black carbon transported to the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 2837-2852.

Here is the direct link to it:
atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2837/2011/acp-11-2837-2011.pdf

Here is a quote from the opening lines of the introduction:

“Black carbon (BC) emissions have been found to be important contributors to current global warming (Forster et al., 2007; Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). However, calculating the full effect of BC emissions on global climate is complex as a myriad of effects (direct, indirect, semi-direct and snow-albedo effect) and source types (industrial, diesel, stoves, open biomass burning, etc.) influence the final radiative forcing. Substantial research is currently underwayto quantify the radiative forcing (RF) of BC from its varied sources and effects.”

Note that in the very first sentence the authors state as a fact that BC emissions contribute to global warming - citing a publication by the very scientist, Ramanathan, whose research informs the Pope and the Vatican. The authors go on to justify their research by stating they will examine this relationship more closely, because there are many factors need to be considered in order to better understand this complex system. Nowhere in the article do the authors question the veracity of the carbon emission/global warming relationship. Look for it - it’s not there.

However, Kimmie uses this article to claim that:

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas.

The she provides this quote:

Clearly, the current snow-albedo-altering impact of BC wafting over the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau vastly overshadows its direct radiative warming impact, which suggests that the most logical way to strive to avert the melting of Himalayan glaciers would be to reduce Asian BC emissions, which would also have a huge positive impact on the health of people living throughout this part of the world, particularly since Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008) note that the majority of BC emissions (60%) arise from “cooking with biofuels such as wood, dung and crop residue” and from “open biomass burning (associated with deforestation and crop residue burning),” and since Venkataraman et al. (2005) note that control of BC emissions through cleaner cooking technologies alone could help in “reducing health risks to several hundred million users.”

Which is NOT from the article at all, but appears to be from this source: co2science.org/articles/V14/N20/C3.php

That looks pretty bad, unless you grant her a bit of leeway for being a naive scholar. This is why I pointed out that she would be interested in hearing about Project Surya. “In March 2007, Ramanathan wrote a white paper with Balakrishnan on a potential project that will reduce air pollution and global warming.” - Note: the fundamental issue behind the white paper is once again reducing GLOBAL WARMING.

The purpose of the Vatican report was to illustrate how climate change has impacted the Himalayas. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is NOT part of the Vatican “propaganda” machine as Kimmie suggests. It is an independent body within the Holy See and enjoys freedom of research.

According to the Wikipedia article:

“Since the Academy and its membership is not influenced by factors of a national, political, or religious character it represents a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the Holy See and to the international scientific community.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

That is a pretty glowing endorsement from a disinterested source - unless you believe the whole thing is some kind of Catholic conspiracy perpetuated by the Vatican and the authors of the Wikipedia article.

So now I have refuted several of Kimmie’s arguments and “caught” her in a bit of sloppy scholarship despite the fact that I have no expertise in the field whatsoever. Can you imagine what a real climate scientist would do? Like I said, Kimmie seems smart enough, but she is presently way out of her league.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011. Origin and radiative forcing of black carbon transported to the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 2837-2852.

Here is the direct link to it:
atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2837/2011/acp-11-2837-2011.pdf

Here is a quote from the opening lines of the introduction:

“Black carbon (BC) emissions have been found to be important contributors to current global warming (Forster et al., 2007; Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). However, calculating the full effect of BC emissions on global climate is complex as a myriad of effects (direct, indirect, semi-direct and snow-albedo effect) and source types (industrial, diesel, stoves, open biomass burning, etc.) influence the final radiative forcing. Substantial research is currently underwayto quantify the radiative forcing (RF) of BC from its varied sources and effects.”

Actually CORRECT…BUT Did you read it - it cites your buddy Veerabhadran Ramanathan.

The Pontifical Study asked for the World… for a reduction of 50% to save the Himalayas.

We are talking of SAVING the Himalayas - IT is well known AND IPCC knows it…the Himalayas are threatened NOT By AGW or CO2 But Black Carbon from the **REGION… **

The lead at IPCC A Co writer of this Pontifical Paper R.K. Pachauri from India - And IPCC Head ] doesn’t want you to know this because the Himalayas serve as a poster child. Mr.R.K. Pachauri has a fondness for trying to get the world to Reduce CO2 - BUT INDIA will not aggressively reduce Black Carbon.

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas. I’ll stand by this statement.

 

[bellasbane]

bellasbane;8197961:

Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011. Origin and radiative forcing of black carbon transported to the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 2837-2852.

Here is the direct link to it:
atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2837/2011/acp-11-2837-2011.pdf

Here is a quote from the opening lines of the introduction:

“Black carbon (BC) emissions have been found to be important contributors to current global warming (Forster et al., 2007; Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). However, calculating the full effect of BC emissions on global climate is complex as a myriad of effects (direct, indirect, semi-direct and snow-albedo effect) and source types (industrial, diesel, stoves, open biomass burning, etc.) influence the final radiative forcing. Substantial research is currently underwayto quantify the radiative forcing (RF) of BC from its varied sources and effects.”

Actually CORRECT…BUT Did you read it - it cites your buddy Veerabhadran Ramanathan.

The Pontifical Study asked for the World… for a reduction of 50% to save the Himalayas.

We are talking of SAVING the Himalayas - IT is well known AND IPCC knows it…the Himalayas are threatened NOT By AGW or CO2 But Black Carbon from the **REGION… **

The lead at IPCC A Co writer of this Pontifical Paper R.K. Pachauri from India - And IPCC Head ] doesn’t want you to know this because the Himalayas serve as a poster child. Mr.R.K. Pachauri has a fondness for trying to get the world to Reduce CO2 - BUT INDIA will not aggressively reduce Black Carbon.

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas.

Kimmie,

Could you try posting this again? I’m having trouble sorting through your response.