C
cathdoki
Guest
No there aren’t a lot of meteorologists and climatologists that believe it’s happening. Just those who’s pockets are lined by the research money. Then there’s Al Gore.
- Status
C
cathdoki
Guest
M
MariaTS
Guest
Except that used to be teaching of the Catholic Church. And as some Catholics say, you have to accept all church teaching. However if anyone believes the sun revolves around the earth then they have a severe learning impediment.
C
cathdoki
Guest
Global warming is not a Church teaching. And as a scientists in the field for over 30 years I consider myself to be knowledgeable on the subject. Did you check out www.icecap.us?
And…someday in the very near future, man-made global warming might be something the church regrets having a faulty opinion on. Just like the sun revolving around the earth.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
La Nina tightens her grip on the southern hemisphere…
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/30/frozen-tropics-as-la-nina-takes-hold/
Global cooling???
Maybe we should generate MORE carbon dioxide. Lots more.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/30/frozen-tropics-as-la-nina-takes-hold/
Global cooling???
Maybe we should generate MORE carbon dioxide. Lots more.
C
cathdoki
Guest
A year or two or ten or twenty does not substantiate climate change. But how many people are aware that the ice sheet over North America is the largest in many years this summer. The heat we’ve all (gloriously experienced ) has not made it to the Arctic. The global jet stream has remained much farther south than usual. That’s why so many tornadoes in the northeastern U.S. this year.
In the last 2 years it has snowed in places in the southern hemisphere that have not seen snow in over 100 years. That does not have anything to say about overall climate, but it does say that weather and climate have huge sways.
Think about it. In climatology there are cycles within cycles within cycles. Some are several years long and it ranges to centuries of longevity.
) has not made it to the Arctic. The global jet stream has remained much farther south than usual. That’s why so many tornadoes in the northeastern U.S. this year.In the last 2 years it has snowed in places in the southern hemisphere that have not seen snow in over 100 years. That does not have anything to say about overall climate, but it does say that weather and climate have huge sways.
Think about it. In climatology there are cycles within cycles within cycles. Some are several years long and it ranges to centuries of longevity.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Yeah, but…A year or two or ten or twenty does not substantiate climate change. But how many people are aware that the ice sheet over North America is the largest in many years this summer. The heat we’ve all (gloriously experienced
In the last 2 years it has snowed in places in the southern hemisphere that have not seen snow in over 100 years. That does not have anything to say about overall climate, but it does say that weather and climate have huge sways.
Think about it. In climatology there are cycles within cycles within cycles. Some are several years long and it ranges to centuries of longevity.
when it’s warm, the AGW warmer folks make the claim that it’s climate.
When it’s cold, the AGW warmer folks make the claim that it’s merely weather.
Can’t have it both ways.
On top of that, the AGW is all based on computer models. Totally on computer models. And we know the data are bad and the models are flawed.
The deliberate use of corrupted data can be compensated for. So, the models say in one hundred years (100 years), the temperature will be one degree warmer. [Most likely scenario, since the IPCC puts out a dozen scenarios, so you can take your pick.]
So, if the (name removed by moderator)ut data reads five degrees too high and the computer model says + 1º, then ipsofacto, adjust the model results by -5º …results in a one hundred year forecast of not +1º , but rather -4º.
So, there’s a big IPCC “oops”!
C
cathdoki
Guest
LOL! Very perceptive! It’s sooooooooooooo true. Check out that site that I listed. www.icecap.us
You’ll find it interesting. I’m member.
God bless you my friend!
C
cathdoki
Guest
BTW…you can also check out the NIPCC. That’s where most scientists are. I don’t have the address, it’s at work, but it’s the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC is also notorious for stacking the cards in their climate models. Tisk Tisk. A bunch of liars!
M
Modelsim
Guest
I would argue that all speeches by the pope to the UN would just be considered personal opinion of the pope and not any type of teaching. When he speaks before the UN, he does so as a head of a sovereign state and not with the authority of the chair of St. Peter.
C
cathdoki
Guest
…and I would argue you are absolutely correct!
C
chain
Guest
I expect that somewhere in the CCC is doctrine on being a steward to the land/earth. I suspect that salting the earth for future generations is frowned upon.
That said, I do not think there is any specific doctrine on global warming. Personally I wish we could simply accept the fact that pollution and consumerism is not good, and quit publishing the scare of the earth is going to boil tomorrow. We have plenty of evidence that pollution is bad without the pseudo science attached to man made climate change.
I sometimes thing a large percentage of those who support man made climate change as a FACT, also think we should abort 90% of our unborn to save mother earth.
That said, I do not think there is any specific doctrine on global warming. Personally I wish we could simply accept the fact that pollution and consumerism is not good, and quit publishing the scare of the earth is going to boil tomorrow. We have plenty of evidence that pollution is bad without the pseudo science attached to man made climate change.
I sometimes thing a large percentage of those who support man made climate change as a FACT, also think we should abort 90% of our unborn to save mother earth.
C
cathdoki
Guest
Yep. By knowing that global warming is a farce, I also know that we have been terrible stewards of God’s creation.
R
RWMorris
Guest
You have to ask yourself, what is our mission? Is it to save mother earth?
C
cathdoki
Guest
I don’t, but it is to use God’s creation in a way that shows respect to God. I know that AGW is a hoax, but I also know that we have been terrible stewards of God’s creation, especially in the last 100 years. Anthropogenic Glo-bull Warming is just that. But we’ve not done a good job taking care of God’s creation. He gave it to us to use wisely. I don’t think we’ve done that.
And yes, most of the AGW proponents (not all) probably have no problem with abortion. It’s a sad state of affairs.
C
Calliso
Guest
Umm actually it is basically a lie that AGW is based totally on models. skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html
Oh and NOAA recently released the State of the Climate 2009 report. www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2009-hi-rez.pdf Its long and I can;t claim to have read much of it yet but if you want to learn more I think it would be a good start/.
C
cathdoki
Guest
HUH? Hey, we should be 2C warmer now according to 15 years ago. I work for NOAA, it is a politically correct organization. Now, when you get past the upper echelon you’ll find that less than 25% of us agree with the official doctrine. But what the heck? What do we know? What does 30 years mean? I work with many people that have been in the profession for 10-20-30-40 years that know it’s all bunk.
I also know new people that have been in for 1 to 5 years that get a chuckle out of it. I guess we’re just ignorant.
The_Reginator
Active member
That is what has bothered me all along.
We must be good stewards. I wonder what human resources and money are being wasted on lowering the amount of carbon we emit at the expense of all other forms of pollution. Reduce carbon? Sure! But let’s not forget the whole picture.
Clean drinking water. Food production. Even litter. And air pollution of all kinds.
I hope it goes without saying that we should continue studying our climate, along with all aspects of God’s creation, and react sensibly, rather than being ‘politically correct’.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
And I heard some 3 or 4 years ago from NOAA scientists speaking anonymously for fear of losing their jobs, that there was a chilling effect over there against employees who accept global warming science and that AGW is happening. That’s the major “cooling” happening on planet earth now.HUH? Hey, we should be 2C warmer now according to 15 years ago. I work for NOAA, it is a politically correct organization. Now, when you get past the upper echelon you’ll find that less than 25% of us agree with the official doctrine. But what the heck? What do we know? What does 30 years mean? I work with many people that have been in the profession for 10-20-30-40 years that know it’s all bunk.
I also know new people that have been in for 1 to 5 years that get a chuckle out of it. I guess we’re just ignorant.
(I also had a distant relative who worked for EPA in the 80s, and I later heard from an underling that she advanced by looking the other way when it came to toxic sites.)
If you really do work for NOAA, you should know that AGW has to do with the energy imbalance, the global average temp over a longer period, and not whether it’s colder in Podunk this winter, or hotter in Klonkdunk this summer.
Recent stats say so far this year (1st 6 months) have been the hottest on record. But as I said, you have to look at the long time trend.
The AGW is complex, bec we are also emitting aerosols along with our GHG emissions, and these have a temporary cooling effect. Also there are “sloshings” as James Hansen refers to them, meaning natural regional fluctuations or anomalies in temperatures, such as el nino/la nina. This past winter we had a strongly negative arctic oscillation, in which the normal patter of wind going west to east changed to north to south, bringing colder than usual weather down south to some mid-latitude areas, while making some areas of the arctic 7-10C warmer than usual.
The main point is the global average temperature is increasing (even despite being somewhat suppressed by the aerosol effect.
People need to read the peer-reviewed science and the IPCC reports (based mainly on peer-reviewed science) on this, don’t take my word for it. Just bec the deniosphere says the IPCC and peer-review articles are bunk, doesn’t make it so – let the denialists go out and actually do science, then come back with their reports.
The Church is clearly against killing people willy nilly through AGW or any other method. It’s not abortion v. AGW.
“The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk.” vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html
We need to stop killing, no matter what our method. If some refrain from abortion, but kill thru AGW, that’s wrong. If some mitigate AGW, but have abortions, that is wrong. When one truly turns away from sin, they turn away from ALL sins, not just one or two sins.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
If one but tries to mitigate AGW, they will soon find to their delight that they are saving money, without lowering living standards. And businesses can do so without lowering productivity. No kidding. Be not afraid, God is with us.
They will also find that mitigating AGW also mitigates many other problems. No kidding. For one instance (out of many we measures we have implemented), my $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on soap-up switch, which cuts hot water use in half (I did a bucket and timer test when we switched showerheads), has saved us $2000 over the past 20 years. And it saved potable water (a diminishing resource), gas (a finite and diminishing resource), and the pollution from that gas. There are many many other savings from other measures. Offsetting some driving from some walking or bicycle riding is good for the health and spirits, and reduces taxes (less wear & tear on the roads), and reduces crime – they’ve found that in places where people are present, walking & cycling, there is less crime.
Now with all those savings, we could do things to reduce toxic pollution, such as buy organic foods – although most such measures also save money, if not always thru direct savings, then thru lower health costs (which we don’t see, but can imagine might be there); not to mention, less toxic products produced, less workers exposed to harms, less toxins emitted into the air during manufacturing, and less landfill leaching of toxins into our land and water ways.
Some good videos to help people understand all this can be found at The Story of Stuff.
- Status