Catholicism and Climate Change

[lynnvinc]

Ok are you seriously suggesting here that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics? skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm heck here is even something from a skeptic drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/ As for that equation I am still not really sure what you are talking about with this debunking but I did find this n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/11/debate-over-good-guys-win.html as for the logarithmic claim I did find this response in a comment thread on realclimate. first the comment being reponded too in red Sorry, I was linking the 2 issues – the estimate of climate sensitivity and the added CO2 released from ecosystems. If the temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, adding more CO2 will have diminishing effect. I also wonder if the infra-red absorption bands can become saturated? Then the response in blue The logarithmic effect is already incorporated in radiative transfer models. And a “diminishing effect” does not necesessarily mean a “small effect,” if that’s what you’re getting at. Look at it this way: we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial, and any feedback that accelerates CO2 release will make the day of doubling come sooner, giving ecosystems and society less time to adapt, and requiring tighter emissions targets if one is to avoid doubling but really it seems to me that the scientists are accepting that the relationship between co2 and temperature rise is logarithmic some more stuff from skeptical science again, skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

As for no observational evidence. Well that just isn;t true! I have posted in my last post links that show pretty clearly that it is warming. But now to show some evidence that the warming has anything to do with co2 and humans.
First another nice post from skeptical science skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html this link goes into more detail about the evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are the main culprit in the recent warming,. skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html but really the claim of no observational evidence is completely false. As I have shown in these threads time and time again. I mean I guess I am curious but have you ever even tried to look for the evidence for AGW? Or are you just believing one what seems to be a popular “skeptic” claim that AGW is totally based on models? Cause i think if you would look at my links and look further you would find plenty. Also skeptical science has a nice list of commonly used arguments by skeptics which is very useful skepticalscience.com/argument.php But plain and simple let me put it this way I donlt think that humans are a major cause of the recent warming because some politican told me or whatever. I believe it because I have read the evidence and looked into the issue. I am no expert by any means. But with my limited understanding the evidence seems pretty solid. And I used to be someone that was somewhat skeptical of AGW. I didn;t disbelieve it totally but for awhile thought claims were being greatly over exaggerated. Though to be fair the media can over exaggerate things and that is where I used to and probably the majority of people get there info on AGW. Which is not a good place to get it for the most part.

As a person in the social sciences & humanities & physical sciences (I’m an anthropologist), I find fables to be instructive. Like “The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back” and “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

It is not the first 100 inches of flooding that does the most harm; it is the last 20 inches that goes over and breaches the levee. It is not the shift from cat 1 to cat 3 hurricane that does the most damage, but going just a bit more than cat 3 intense that can do much more damage.

Just that one extra degree during a heatwave could kill a person (actually it is the warmer nights, the increasing minimum diurnal temps, which are a very good signal of GW, and also which do more harm to people and plants, than the increasing maximum diurnal temps for now – tho those will also being doing drastic harms as the warming continues…once we’re out of the solar minimum and/or the industrial aerosols are cleaned up).

Also there is the issue of positive feedbacks kicking in – tipping points, both in climate and in other areas of the ecosystem. The warming causing release of more GHGs, causing more warming, causing more releases. The carbon gun in fully loaded as Hansen points out in his book, Storms of My Granchildren, and the GHG releases from nature could be really tremendous. So log-schmog, we’re pulling the trigger of a very dangerous weapon by our initial “straw” of warming. ((And BTW, I knew about the log function – as if people don’t know about it.))

In any case, while scientists are overly reticent in their claims re AGW, needing 90 to 95% confidence, because they can’t afford to be the boy who called wolf, and harm their reputations; we cannot afford to the the villagers who got eaten up…

I might doubt a scientist who says the trichlorethylene in the water did not cause the leukemia of the 10 children in a neighbohood of Small Town, USA (who knows, they might be getting kickbacks from the company that dumped the stuff), but I sure am going to believe scientists who say there is a problem that can harm life on earth – esp since I already understood the natural greenhouse effect decades before I came to understand AGW is likely happening.

 

[Anselm33]

As a person in the social sciences & humanities & physical sciences

 

[Anselm33]

As a person in the social sciences & humanities & physical

 

[MikeSar]

Dear friends,

This is my first post on this website, thanks for your answers.
I’m a committed Catholic from Sydney, Australia, and last night I was having a good conversation with a friend who is an athiest-humanist.
He actually didn’t pit the question to me directly, but if he did, I wouldn’t actually have known what to say:
What is the Catholic Church’s position on climate change? Why aren’t more Christian leaders committed to climate change, when the science so clearly points out that it is real and the planet’s fate depends on the climate?
Is the answer that we are still not convinced of the science?
Or that we are already quite active?
Or that there are more pressing moral issues to be dealt with, such as abortion and other life issues?
Or is the answer that the climate is such a big thing, that it is really beyond human control, and something that is really in God’s hands?
Is the answer that the climate will change depending on the degree of sin in the world - perhaps it is changing now because of the unprecedented wholesale change in the abandonment of God in western society?
Thanks for your help, God bless,

Jason.

Killing one human being is a Mortal Sin, killing 6 Billion is also a Mortal Sin.
Yes, you can fool yourself, and me, and tell us “but. I didn’t know”, yes, you can try that on all-forgiving people, but, would you try to fool God? You need something better, like a good proof why there are so many fires in Russia and floods in Pakistan.
I would like to read your explanation. Consider it a trial-run prior to telling it to St. Peter, the Guardian with the Keys, you did read that part of the Bible, right?

 

[kimmielittle]

People are capable of killing people, it’s just that we’ve decided to do it through GHGs, AGW and its knock-on effects – as well as through guns, abortion scalpels, genocide against Native Americans, etc.

For instance, we’ve killed about 15,000 people in Europe during the summer 2003 heatwave (they figure about half of the 30,000 deaths are attributable to AGW). Then there are the 160,000 deaths each year caused by disease spread, attributable to AGW. And that doesn’t count a portion of those who die due to floods, droughts, severe storms, agri and seafood decline due to AGW & its various affects, etc.

And that doesn’t count the millions, perhaps billions that will be dying in the future due to the GHGs we’ve already emitted up to now (assuming someone doesn’t invent a CO2 vacuum cleaner that doesn’t emit more GHGs than it takes in).

And it doesn’t at all count the millions who die from the same actions that cause AGW – from local pollution, acid rain, mining/drilling for fossil fuels, etc. That itself is enough to strive to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

Let’s face it we’re just a bunch of killers, but we don’t have to be. We can change and be good if we want to .

You sure don’t seem to understand debate.

Let me help you. Think of debating like a game of chess or checkers.
When your piece has been has been attacked - and you don’t / wont defend it - You forever, loose that piece.

To move a piece you must first have a piece.

Unlike you, I have defended my pieces - and in fact offered you ** extra ** chances to refute the uses of my pieces.

Until you bring a new piece to the table and defend it…well lets just say - I find your playing board empty

 

[lynnvinc]

To give a little bit more direct info here skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm to just give a little example. Of course I donlt think you can for sure attribute anyone one specific event to global warming. But I have heard it is like loading the dice increasing the odds of extreme weather events.

Yes, which is why Kimmie is saying “name one person who has been killed.” You could say that half the people killed by the heat wave in Europed in summer 2003 were killed by AGW, but you can’t say which ones specifically.

Eventually, decades after the fact, they will probably be able to roughly estimate what proportion of people were killed in the past by this or that AGW effect, once tons of stats have piled up, and the science has advanced further. But they still might not be able to say in 2098 that Frank Aaron Smith (born 2023) definitively died due to an effect of AGW.

Reminds me of the tobacco industry’s tactic of taking each lung cancer case, and saying, well, it could also have been due to the polluted air, or the industrial fumes where the guy worked, or the household kitchen fumes, or family history of cancer (it’s in the genes), or …

(Since one of their heroes, Fred Singer, doesn’t believe smoking causes lung cancer, I imagine these people don’t either, so the argument is sort of lost on them.)

 

[kimmielittle]

((And BTW, I knew about the log function – as if people don’t know about it.))

Since you knew about it …Would you care to explain it? …AND explain what damage it does to the Green House Effect? And how without the Green House Effect does AGW work?

PS The equations I’ve just shown are newly discovered through Freedom of Information - So how did you know about it, please? Hint: Moon Papers

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, which is why Kimmie is saying “name one person who has been killed.” You could say that half the people killed by the heat wave in Europed in summer 2003 were killed by AGW, but you can’t say which ones specifically.

If you those people show AGW - what do the 20,000 who died in the same year that winter from fridged cold - show?

Actually, I’ll do without personal names - how about a death certificate saying “Death by AGW”

(Since one of their heroes, Fred Singer, doesn’t believe smoking causes lung cancer, I imagine these people don’t either, so the argument is sort of lost on them.)

More ad hominems ???

Better Fred Singer than AGW’ers hero Peter Singer You do know Mr.Peter Singer - The environmentalist guy who supports such things as Eugenics, even Bestiality }

 

[kimmielittle]

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

 

[portarica]

Actually, we are

** US Leads World in Greenhouse Gas Reduction **

 

[kimmielittle]

And what do you attribute the per capital decline in greenhouse gas usage to?

Actually, I didn’t attempt to attribute - Your post basically asked why we weren’t reducing GHG - Or that we weren’t reducing - I offered evidence that we were.

As far as your other questions here - It makes no difference. Because it was used for one purpose - to address your question / remark…nothing more…nothing less.

I would point out the recession was world wide.

I will say one thing - It was done without ratifying Kyoto - without IPCC - Without Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control Schemes.

The other Countries Have Ratified Koyoto - Have Cap and Trades …and missed their goals

 

[sedonaman]

…
I will say one thing - It was done without ratifying Kyoto - without IPCC - Without Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control Schemes.
…

These are all wealth-transfer schemes, designed to make the politically connected more wealthier than they already are.

Think of all those tax credits for people who install energy “saving” devices in their homes. I have yet to encounter a single one that didn’t take forever and a day to recoup its cost. You fill out a complicated tax form and do the calculation, and the bottom line is you get an $80 credit for spending something like $15,000 on replacing single-pane windows with double-pane ones; or $25 credit for paying an equally absurd amount to install a solar hot water panel.

The manufacturers are in essence making products that no one would buy absent the credits. I’m sure that if we were to delve into them, we would find that carbon credits are another paper-shuffling scheme to make a few wealthy and not about saving the environment. When Nancy Pelosi says we have to get off hydrocarbons as a source of energy and move to natural gas, you know they don’t even care that they don’t know what they are talking about and that they have ulterior motives.

 

[kimmielittle]

These are all wealth-transfer schemes, designed to make the politically connected more wealthier than they already are.

Think of all those tax credits for people who install energy “saving” devices in their homes. I have yet to encounter a single one that didn’t take forever and a day to recoup its cost. You fill out a complicated tax form and do the calculation, and the bottom line is you get an $80 credit for spending something like $15,000 on replacing single-pane windows with double-pane ones; or $25 credit for paying an equally absurd amount to install a solar hot water panel.

The manufacturers are in essence making products that no one would buy absent the credits. I’m sure that if we were to delve into them, we would find that carbon credits are another paper-shuffling scheme to make a few wealthy and not about saving the environment. When Nancy Pelosi says we have to get off hydrocarbons as a source of energy and move to natural gas, you know they don’t even care that they don’t know what they are talking about and that they have ulterior motives.

On Carbon Credits - Didn’t people in the olden days buy Sacraments so they could keep on sinning? I see no difference.

Oh My…please don’t get me started on Ms. Pelosi My friend Tigg will know why ]

 

[kimmielittle]

These are all wealth-transfer schemes, designed to make the politically connected more wealthier than they already are.

Think of all those tax credits for people who install energy “saving” devices in their homes. I have yet to encounter a single one that didn’t take forever and a day to recoup its cost. You fill out a complicated tax form and do the calculation, and the bottom line is you get an $80 credit for spending something like $15,000 on replacing single-pane windows with double-pane ones; or $25 credit for paying an equally absurd amount to install a solar hot water panel.

We have that type of stuff on my new home - BUT my Big Brother thinks Mr Gore ate the rebates. We got nothing - and the hot water heater panels have had to be replaced about 4 times now.

 

[sedonaman]

On Carbon Credits - Didn’t people in the olden days buy Sacraments so they could keep on sinning? …

I think you are referring to buying indulgences so you would spend less time in Purgatory [as the theory goes].

 

[sedonaman]

… the hot water heater panels have had to be replaced about 4 times now.

I rest my case.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think you are referring to buying indulgences so you would spend less time in Purgatory [as the theory goes].

Yeppers!!! That’s the word " Indulgences"…>>Only the rich can keep on ‘sinning’ scheme. If that doesn’t tell you it’s a fix for a certain “class” and economically driven…

PS if you are really into Carbon Offsets - Don’t pay someone $999.00. You can buy 90 - 120 trees for less than $100.00 - Buy the pines they photosynthesize more than even Oaks, Maples, rainforest type trees do ]

 

[kimmielittle]

I rest my case.

I just asked…we have replaced them 5 times and they still need the regular type hot water heaters…because when the panels go out, it takes months to get them replaced

 

[sedonaman]

I just asked…we have replaced them 5 times and they still need the regular type hot water heaters…because when the panels go out, it takes months to get them replaced

I once helped a friend remove an old one from his roof. What a job. The experience told me they aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell, or even the match to light them on fire. [He didn’t replace it.]

 

[kimmielittle]

I once helped a friend remove an old one from his roof. What a job. The experience told me they aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell, or even the match to light them on fire. [He didn’t replace it.]

We have windmills for water pumps - they work O’kay 'cause the water is held in ponds / tanks etc.

We paid thousands and thousands of dollars for solar and wind generators and the CAT batteries to store DC currant There is a reason why Mr Edisons’ assistant changed from DC to AC }…Well… the batteries wind / solar work good for my Big Brothers Ham / Emergency radios ONLY when He’s not a soldier - He is a First Responder ]. The batteries need a special ventelated house cause they smell like rotten eggs I think thats Hydrocloric Acid Fumes, If i’m not mistaken ? ]. The special little house has to be built close to the residence because of DC line loss.