Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

Yes, isn’t it amazing how such small molecules can have such a big impact. Science never fails to amaze me. ** Just think, without the natural greenhouse effect we wouldn’t be here to discuss AGW**.

Actually I’d check my understanding of The Second Law of Thermodynamics…and Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the AGW …Man Made Global Warming theory - NATURAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT…It was long ago debunked. As a matter of fact: NASA debunked it nearly 40 years ago during Apollo How about this Scientific Truth …An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs??

Science is fascinating. And we need to listen to the scientists…

ABSOLUTELY …You have been challenged here before, to prove scientific evidence for your statements, you seem not to want to.

 

[Anselm33]

.

RE H2O, the scientists know this is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 – they’ve never denied that. However, since H2O molecules only stay in the atmosphere a few days or weeks, it is a feedback rather than a forcing. CO2 stays up a lot longer, and a portion of CO2 can stay up to 100,000 years.

like me (Ph. D. in physics and 57 years practice in academia and medical physics), Lindzen, Ball, Singer, Seitz, but not the pseudo-scientists and scientific bureaucrats like Hansen, and the other Climategate warmists.

 

[Anselm33]

Many things in excess cause damage to our bodies and health. Are the financial schemes like cap and trade the answer? I don’t think so, they just encourage the movement of pollution and give economic benefit to the movers as opposed to really addressing the issue.

So why are we not reducing pollution because it is just better for mankind? Mainly because doing so would be against the economic interests of those that benefit from the maintenance of the ability to pollute and it’s close cousin- unsafe working conditions.

 

[kimmielittle]

Many things in excess cause damage to our bodies and health.

Very True.However, in Observational Scientific Studies CO2 Levels only become harmful to plants and humans when the levels of CO2 infringe / displace upon the levels of Oxygen O and Nitrogen N. At much higher levels of 280 -380 ppm levels, Life prospers.

Oxygen and Nitrogen in the atmosphere are at 99%
We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.

**Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. **

**I keep hearing about the ‘pollutant CO2,’ or about ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ with CO2, or about minimizing our ‘carbon footprint.’ - This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: ‘But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’ CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning. **

Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene geologic epoch ] – 280 parts per million - ppm ]

Most of the time CO2 levels ] have been at least 1000 ppm

 

[sedonaman]

…Would you say this is a Truth? An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs?? __________________

It’s actually less because there is a loss in any heat transfer.

 

[sedonaman]

…greed trumps stopping pollution. Why are you on the side of greed and pollution?

Peace

I have noticed that those concerned about greed never mention envy. Why are you on the side of envy?

 

[kimmielittle]

like me (Ph. D. in physics and 57 years practice in academia and medical physics), Lindzen, Ball, Singer, Seitz, but not the pseudo-scientists and scientific bureaucrats like Hansen, and the other Climategate warmists.

You gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever received

You asked me, if I were a Physicists or Scientist, Because I knew / understood the mis-usage of Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the AGW.

Actually, no. I have refuted false claims / statements made here, on simple logic and basic science principles and MUCH resourcing.

Actually, I got mad when I found out Polar Bears weren’t dieing , and decided to find out the Science behind the hypothesis of AGW .

Since the only criteria to be called a Climatologist - is to study climate - I guess I qualify as a Climatologist I like that, Climatologist kimmie
But really, I’m just a kid I have a long time before I can even vote ]

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s actually less because there is a loss in any heat transfer.

But shhhhhhh let’s see if it’s answered

 

[sedonaman]

…
Actually, I got mad when I found out Polar Bears weren’t dieing , and decided to find out the Science behind the hypothesis of AGW …

Might as well stop wasting your time. There is no science behind AGW, at least not science as you and I understand. Why do you think there was an international AGW conference after the whole idea was shown to be false by the exposure that the supporting “data” had been dry-labbed? “Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is ‘science’ only in the ‘right’ hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.”[See Note]

You and I are not part of the “proper authority”; therefore, our conclusions don’t matter.

Note: for a more complete discussion of this and other political realities, see “America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution” spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

 

[Anselm33]

I’ve started a new thread, “A Modest Proposal”, re CH4 as a GHG, that you may find1) amusing, 2) provoking depending on your point of view.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I’ve started a new thread, “A Modest Proposal”, re CH4 as a GHG, that you may find1) amusing, 2) provoking depending on your point of view.

Put a cork in it.

 

[kimmielittle]

You and I are not part of the “proper authority”; therefore, our conclusions don’t matter.

I know what you are saying.

BUT at my school, because of my research, I got Mr. Gores’ Movie thrown out At one timer Parents / If students didn’t have their own monies - had to buy an inconvenient truth DVD ] …AND people like Masters - Lindzen, Wilde, Ball, D’Anglo, Singer, Seitz, etc etc… ADDED to curriculum. We still have IPCC AR4 But now we have balance.

Note: for a more complete discussion of this and other political realities, see “America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution” spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

EXCELLANT READ Thank You

 

[kimmielittle]

Put a cork in it.

It’s a funny thread Wanna become a partner in selling COWbun Credits with us?

 

[sedonaman]

I know what you are saying.

BUT at my school, because of my research, I got Mr. Gores’ Movie thrown out At one timer Parents / If students didn’t have their own monies - had to buy an inconvenient truth DVD ] …AND people like Masters - Lindzen, Wilde, Ball, D’Anglo, Singer, Seitz, etc etc… ADDED to curriculum. We still have IPCC AR4 But now we have balance.

EXCELLANT READ Thank You

You have to remember that politicians who push programs like AGW are social ‘scientists’, not real scientists who can test hypotheses by repeated experimentation. Scientists will give politicians whatever they are funding *. So, here is another good article “What Social Science Does — and Doesn’t — Know” .

… within this universe of programs that are far more likely to fail than succeed, programs that try to change people

are even more likely to fail than those that try to change incentives.

It is interesting to note that almost without exception, liberal programs try to change people. And that is because they believe that people are infinitely malleable, so to them it is never their idea that fails.

city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html*

 

[Anselm33]

Put a cork in it.

]

I’m going to take it that you meant that as a literal solution to the problem of CH4 emission.

 

[kimmielittle]

You have to remember that politicians who push programs like AGW are** social ‘scientists’,** not real scientists who can test hypotheses by repeated experimentation.

AhhhhhhhAAaaaa…

I knew most are statisticians ?] and modlers - BUT for the life of me - I couldn’t figure out how a kid me ] could find so many blatant holes in their logic and physics.I thought these people had some real hard science background. So these people are mostly Social Engineers - Sociologist - Not educated in the Hard Sciences?

Why in the world would anyone take the word of a Social Scientist in a matter that demands physics - geology …etc etc ?

Scientists will give politicians whatever they are funding *. So, here is another good article “What Social Science Does — and Doesn’t — Know” .

It is interesting to note that almost without exception, liberal programs try to change people*. And that is because they believe that people are infinitely malleable, so to them it is never their idea that fails.

city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html

Another EXCELLENT READ …Thank You

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually, since AGW denies GOD - GOD’s Nature And HAS to place MAN above GOD

No, it doesn’t deny God at all, but fits very well with long understood scientific principles – which God ordained. Plus what is it that brings on the Apocalypse, but man’s sins; I’d hate to think this is end – in some 1000s years – bec people fail to reduce their GHG emissions out of various cardinal sins – gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride; I’d hope tho that somehow we do right this time, and the end happens some other time.

Actually AGW proves God and the Bible very well: Adam and Eve’s pride and insolence against God, their buck-passing (not taking responsibility for their actions), our Fallen Nature, our patrimony from our father Cain to kill out of envy and pride, then lie about it, such as denying we are harming our brothers and sisters thru AGW. So the Bible is that definitive proof for AGW that everyone’s been looking for.

I think we might even stand a chance of converting some atheists to Christianity, once they see just how right the Bible is. Tho I would heartily hope denialists would come around to mitigating AGW, even if they aren’t totally sold on AGW. That too might help convert some atheists to Christianity, or at least reduce their hatred of religion.

 

[lynnvinc]

You have to remember that politicians who push programs like AGW are social ‘scientists’, not real scientists who can test hypotheses by repeated experimentation. Scientists will give politicians whatever they are funding *. So, here is another good article “What Social Science Does — and Doesn’t — Know” .

It is interesting to note that almost without exception, liberal programs try to change people*. And that is because they believe that people are infinitely malleable, so to them it is never their idea that fails.

city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html
That article doesn’t say anything about climate change, but as a social scientist I have to agree that predicting human behavior is quite difficult – and not just bec there are not enough experiments (also note that experiments done in psych labs etc, may or may not be generalizable to the real world in which we live). It’s also because of the complexity of human behavior and thinking, and also the reflexivity – as in you’d think that having heard about the very serious problem of AGW, people would be into mitigating it, making it into a non-problem, instead of acting like some unintelligent species continuing linearly on its way over the cliffs of extinction. (We might even have to rename our species from Homo sapiens to Homo stupidus.)

As a social scientist and a Christian, I’m just flabbergasted that we’re emitting more GHGs today than 20 years ago, when I’d thought 20 yrs ago the problem would be half solved by now. My expert explanation – it’s gotta be the devil. Tho it could be we’re just evil and stupid (my alternative expert explanation).

 

[sedonaman]

…you’d think that having heard about the very serious problem of AGW, people would be into mitigating it, making it into a non-problem, instead of acting like some unintelligent species continuing linearly on its way over the cliffs of extinction. …
As a social scientist and a Christian, I’m just flabbergasted that we’re emitting more GHGs today than 20 years ago, when I’d thought 20 yrs ago the problem would be half solved by now. My expert explanation – it’s gotta be the devil. Tho it could be we’re just evil and stupid (my alternative expert explanation).

I agree that the devil is at work here, but in a different way. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there are too many unanswered technical questions. First, why were the same people in the 1970s claiming there was a new ice age coming? Then consider the whole idea that the earth is warming. How do we know? The “hockey stick” graph? The data that went into it is questionable for at least two big reasons: 1) it has been found to have been fabricated to show a “problem” that is approaching a “crisis”; and 2) today we have sophisticated satellite measuring equipment that can determine the earth’s surface temperature very accurately all over the globe. A hundred years ago, basically all we had were crude thermometers at various locations, and not very many of them, at that. In order to make a comparison between temperatures then and temperatures now, a lot of interpolation and extrapolation had to be done on 100-year-old data to obtain temperatures then in isolated regions and on the oceans where there were no weather stations. Not a very good approach for drawing conclusions, yet for purely political reasons, there is a push on to spend billions of dollars based on those questionable conclusions. If you read the article I referenced in #167, you can see there are other reasons. When big bucks are at stake, what does truth matter?

Social science injects itself into the process the following way:

. . . the increasingly creedal character of the social sciences and humanities has to be reckoned a partial failure for the scientific enterprise in academe. During the earlier part of the twentieth century many of the university’s leading lights saw humane studies as on their way toward incorporation within science. In fact, the framers of American Association of University Professors (AAUP) founding document, its 1915 Declaration of Principles, almost all social scientists or humanists, hinged their case for academic freedom squarely on faculty adherence to science-like practice. As they observed: ‘Since there are no rights without corresponding duties, the considerations heretofore set down with respect to the freedom of the academic teacher entail certain correlative obligations. The claim to freedom of teaching is made in the interest of the integrity and of the progress of scientific inquiry; it is, therefore, only those who carry on their work in the temper of the scientific inquirer who may justly assert this claim.’ It is now clear that this temper has proven far more difficult to keep than originally assumed. This partially reflects the complex and refractory nature of the questions the social sciences and humanities address. Because these fields haven’t as yet developed methodologies capable of cracking tough conceptual nuts in the dispositive manner of the natural sciences, recourse to institutional authority – that is say, to the settling of disputes through the erection of orthodoxy – has proved difficult to resist. A second factor lies in the inability of these domains to produce a useful social product in anything like the amounts generated by the study of nature.

Absent the prestige, support, and self-confidence that such social product confers, the humanities and social sciences have sought them instead through affiliation with what they believe to be deserving movements and causes, each in need of intellectual justification and defense. And, of course, the loss of scientific temper also reflects the dual fact/value quality of the questions with which humane scholarship deals. Passion is woven into its very fabric.
“More Crises Than One”
Stephen H. Balch
nas.org/print/print/More_Crises_than_One–SHB.pdf

IMHO, the discipline should not call itself a “science” but a “study” instead.

 

[kimmielittle]

No, it doesn’t deny God at all,

Then why not call it Natural Global Warming Or God Driven Global Warming? It DENIES ALL other of God’s Nature to mae Man the Driver over ALL else.

but fits very well with long understood scientific principles

How about showing the Scientific Principles Correctly applied here ? You seem to love to state there are some.

You can start with the so Called Green House Effect
Then we can move on to why the An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs In perfect transfer ] principal - Should be thrown out to cause such a so called effect.?

Then we can proceed to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and why it’s ignored?

Then let’s discuss why Stefan-Boltzmann equations are used when known to be debunked?

Then we can discuss why CO2 is numbered in LINEAR and EXPONENTIAL terms instead of logarithmic dynamics, which it’s known to be?

Then we can address why not one claim of AGW has with stood OBSERVATIONAL Science?

– which God ordained.

Do you think God ordained a group of social engineers the right to deceive - in order to transfer power and money without accountability?

Plus what is it that brings on the Apocalypse, but man’s sins;

Who’s doing the sinning? The lies and deceptive tactics of AGW"s to promote their agenda - AND EVEN at those - Still no evidence for their claims of AGW after decades and [T]rillions of Dollars pumped into selling their schemes.

I’d hate to think this is end – in some 1000s years – bec people fail to reduce their GHG emissions out of various cardinal sins – gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride; I’d hope tho that somehow we do right this time, and the end happens some other time.

You are playing like a broken record - YOU AGW’s made the claims - it’s your burden.

Actually AGW proves God and the Bible very well: Adam and Eve’s pride and insolence against God, their buck-passing (not taking responsibility for their actions),

Actually, There was no buck to pass - now was there

our Fallen Nature, our patrimony from our father Cain to kill out of envy and pride, then lie about it, such as denying we are harming our brothers and sisters thru AGW.

Prove that AGW has killed one person

So the Bible is that definitive proof for AGW that everyone’s been looking for.

Can you show where. I can show the sins of envey - coveting - killing for population control…Maybe we shouldn’t try to use the Bible -until we have some knowledge of the Bible?

I think we might even stand a chance of converting some atheists to Christianity,

WHAT a wild stretch. For the most part, Atheists DEMAND evidence…They are void of Faith.

If you can’t convince people of Faith of AGW…Good luck to ya

Tho I would heartily hope denialists would come around to mitigating AGW,

YET once again, Show me one way that Cap and Trade - Population Control - Carbon Credits - Mitigates 1 Degree of Climate.