Catholicism and Climate Change

[sedonaman]

… they smell like rotten eggs I think thats Hydrocloric Acid Fumes, If i’m not mistaken ? ]. …

That would be sulfuric acid. There is sulfur in egg yolks; it gives them their yellow color.

 

[Tigg]

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 ]

Hi kimmie…I’m here, lurking around - now don’t you try getting me into more trouble!

I have thoughts of printing out this thread and making it into a readable book. Seriously, there is wonderful info here; actually I’ve saved the link and intend to go back at my leisure.

I admit it never crossed my mind that there might be ulterior motives with the energy saving devices ( I guess I’m slipping up) but to my credit I did become somewhat suspicious with the new light bulbs ( CFL - is that the correct term?) and the mercury problem.

 

[kimmielittle]

That would be sulfuric acid. There is sulfur in egg yolks; it gives them their yellow color.

Yeppers!!! I got the wrong gas Thank You

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi kimmie…I’m here, lurking around - now don’t you try getting me into more trouble!

Moi?

I have thoughts of printing out this thread and making it into a readable book. Seriously, there is wonderful info here; actually I’ve saved the link and intend to go back at my leisure.

Just correct my punctuations, please

I admit it never crossed ]]my mind that there might be ulterior motives with the energy saving devices ( I guess I’m slipping up) but to my credit I did become somewhat suspicious with the new light bulbs ( CFL - is that the correct term?) and the mercury problem.

Did you know retailers won’t even take them back around here anymore?

 

[kimmielittle]

Didja know one of the biggest pollutants in our water is Estrogen - Progesterone’s?

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021805.html

Maybe we can get some Progressive - Liberal - ecologists Catholics to give up Birth Control or at least don’t pee in any place that goes into our water tables??

:tiphat:HatTip To my Friend Monte

 

[kimmielittle]

For Tigg a new ones

“We are a green company, but the green stands for money.”
- Jeff Skilling, CEO, Enron Corp., quoted in Capitalism at Work, p. 310.

We know who Enron is
Here is some history of Enron, climate alarmism, and CO2 regulation (prominently including cap-and-trade):

“Since 1976, Enron [and predecessor company] employees have been at the forefront of developing air credit trading policies for governments and businesses…. Enron today is the largest and most sophisticated air emissions credit and allowance trading organization in the United States. Since 1990, Enron has participated in over 80 SOx allowance transactions and has also been active in establishing policies for trading NOx in the United States and carbon [dioxide] world-wide.”

         - “Enron Corp.’s Participation in Air Trading,” Enron Capital & Trade Resources, November 4, 1996 (copy in files).

“If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative…. The endorsement of [CO2] emissions trading was another victory for us…. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!”

- John Palmisano (December 12, 1997) from Kyoto, Japan. Quoted in Bradley, Capitalism at Work, p. 307.

 

[Ender]

That would be sulfuric acid. There is sulfur in egg yolks; it gives them their yellow color.

Not that it’s important, but the smelly compound is actually hydrogen sulfide - H2S.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Not that it’s important, but the smelly compound is actually hydrogen sulfide - H2S.

Ender

Thank you… Is it the same in batteries and eggs?

 

[lynnvinc]

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

I don’t have to prove AGW. It’s in the science journals. Just read them. Done by scientists who know a lot more about climate science than I do. Just read the journals. Maybe start with Science, Nature, PNAS. There are other good ones, but that might be a good place to start. AGW is accepted by the climate science community. Even by skeptics (who are only saying it won’t be as bad as the myriad of others are claiming.

We are living in a globally warmed world. Any deaths that can be linked to expected AGW effects, in my books ARE caused by AGW. Again, it is that last bit of negative impact (the part definitively caused by AGW) that would have killed the person.

 

[lynnvinc]

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?

Here’s a little poem I wrote about this:

Do not emit greenhouse gases beyond your needs and simple pleasures,
For you’ll warm and harm God’s world and many of its treasures.
And when you get to heaven, the Lord will say,
“What about those excess gases you emitted day by day,”
And when you say you do not know,
The Lord will say, “Please step below.”

 

[kimmielittle]

Science

• magazine has been stewing so long in the global warming bouillabaisse that its very brains are beginning to smoke. That may be because its august editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy (until last year) was a dedicated warm-monger. Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the political lobby for Big Science in Washington, D.C. The editor-in-chief of Science is like the Queen of England: It’s the closest thing to God in the church hierarchy. Everybody kisses your butt, and all you have to do is wave your hand to the cheering peasantry from your golden coach.

Try a Google search for “Donald Kennedy AND global warming” and you get almost six million hits. Search for “global warming” in Science magazine itself, and you get 2,792 citations – almost as many as you get for “increased science funding.”

Here are some Science magazine headlines in the last several years, a period when we know that atmospheric temperatures were flat or declining. As MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen just wrote in the* Wall Street Journal*: “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.” The unfortunate tendency of the atmosphere to stop warming is, of course, why Phil Jones and the CRUdocrats were trying to “fix” the data in their infamous e-mail exchanges.

During this time, Science magazine published thousands of references to global warming, americanthinker.com/2009/12/donald_kennedy_and_the_corrupt.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Under Mr Kennedy at Science Mag

In 2002, Science withdrew eight papers authored by Jan Hendrik Schön after it was shown that Schön had fabricated much of his data.
An article published in Science in 2002 on the neurotoxicity of the drug MDMA (“ecstasy”) caused some controversy when a mix-up of vials caused the paper to be retracted in 2003 (see Neurotoxicity of MDMA controversy).
Science encountered another controversy in 2006 when papers by Hwang Woo-Suk on cloning human embryos from stem cell research were withdrawn by Seoul National University due to apparent scientific fraud. A committee set up by Science to study the matter found that the journal’s procedures had been followed, and the journal could do little in the face of deliberate fraud. The committee recommended that papers received should henceforth be classified as non-controversial or controversial; controversial papers should be looked at more thoroughly. Science also suggested that Nature may want to take up the same standards it was adopting.[12]
Kennedy defended the peer review system, pointing out that catching fraud would require “costly and offensive oversight on the vast majority of scientists in order to catch the occasional cheater”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)#cite_note-12

%between%
%between%

%between%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal

 

[kimmielittle]

AND it goes on AND on

Things only get worse when we look at the Eurekalert site, which is also run by the AAAS. Eurekalert presents an endless flow of press releases from universities that make billions from federal grants. This is where our pop media get their scientific news.

Here are some search results:

Global Warming: 2,500 hits

Climate Change: 5,140 hits

CO2 Global Warming: 2,498 hits

Anthropogenic: 338 hits

Catastrophic: 1,213 hits

Apparently, a lot of PR guys and gals were mining this little vein of gold. Remember Goebbels’ slogan that “a Big Lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”?This is the Big Lie Repetition Machine. All your average journalist has to do is go to Eurekalert, search for “catastrophic” or “global warming,” and copy the latest headline. Since the media are firing human “journalists” these days, they might as well get a computer program to do it.

It was Donald Kennedy who initiated the Science magazine State of the Planet issues to drive home the Global Warming meme. In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science,he wrote, “The consequences of the past century’s temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events …”

The only trouble: It wasn’t true.

As skeptic Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote in a letter to Science that somehow passed the censors:Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in “droughts or wet spells,” or in"tornados, hail, and other severe weather"… A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation. (Science, June 9, 2005, Letters)
But Mr. Kennedy’s mind was made up, and mere facts could not change it. In his editorialon* The Breakthrough of the Year* for 2005, Kennedy wrote: An especially significant runner-up (to the Breakthrough of the Year for 2005) was climate change. 650,000-year-old ice cores from Antarctica give a continuous record of correlations between atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane and the temperature changes imposed by glacial cycles. New information put to rest the idea, popular with those skeptical about global warming, that satellite measurements, in contrast to ground measurements, showed cooling. One by one, holes in the global warming case are being filled. Government actions should follow; of that, I’ll say more in the first Science issue of the new year. (http://www.sciencemag.org/ Science, Vol. 310, 23 December 2005)

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

So guess who was instrumental in getting Donald Kennedy appointed to that plum job at Science magazine? Yes, it was our old friend Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb of 1968 – the one that sputtered frighteningly for decades but never went off. It was Paul Ehrlich who wrote the major puff piece for Donald Kennedy, introducing him as editor-in-chief of Science mag, the most powerful job in American science. (See http://www.sciencemag.org.)

Are you beginning to suspect a setup? Uh-huh…

I know a liberal who fell for The Population Bomb three decades ago and still believes it today. Liberals never have to change their minds, especially about facts. Certainly Ehrlich never changed his mind, and when his predictions about planetary doom failed, he didn’t come to the obvious conclusion that I must have been wrong. He just added more epicycles to his pleasingly complicated picture of the climate. That little sentence – “I must be wrong” – is the most important one in the entire vocabulary of honest scientists, of whom there are still a few lonely souls wandering over the blasted heath of Big Academia.

It seems that Ehrlich and Kennedy are good buds. Neither of them are scientists – but they do play them on TV, in the media and at Stanford.

Donald Kennedy was Commissioner of the FDA for Jimmy Carter in the seventies, and he hasn’t stepped into a lab since that time as far as I can tell from his publications – none are based on empirical evidence. All he writes are editorials. Instead, Professor Kennedy returned to being head of Biology at Stanford University.

If you look up Kennedy’s bio on Wikipedia, you’ll see it’s been airbrushed in Stalinist fashion – it’s only a few short paragraphs, with a big notice that Wikipedia does not allow disputed material to appear about living persons. That suggests that somebody wanted to cite some critical facts, but Professor Kennedy objected. I wonder why.

One likely reason is the infamous Stanford University Overhead Scandal. “Overhead” is what universities charge the government over and above the cost of supporting research: In the evil corporate world, it’s called “profit margin.” Of course, universities would never think about making profits, which is why their tuitions and overhead charges to the Feds have been going up and up and up. Barred from making profits, all they do is raise their salaries and pensions and pad their expense accounts. They’re in bed with a monopoly – the federal science bureaucracy – so they charge monopoly prices.

Well, Donald Kennedy as President of Stanford was caught dipping a little too deeply into the honey pot – some business about seven-thousand-dollar bed sheets for the presidential residence and overbilling the Office of Naval Research two hundred million dollars. Small stuff. But the U.S. Congress took notice and called Donald Kennedy on the carpet. Mr. Kennedy defended every penny of his charges and resigned. That’s when his good friends like Mr. Ehrlich got him his job at Science mag.

Everything about Science now smells fishy. The scientific blog world should be searching through journal websites --* Nature, Scientific American, The Lancet, National Geographic*, the lot – to see how deeply they are quagmired in the honey pot of global warming. They all have websites with search engines. Public exposure may help them to clean out that pervasive stink of rotten fish.

The decay goes far beyond the CRUddites in Britain; it’s all over the world among the machine politicians of science.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s a little poem I wrote about this:
Do not emit greenhouse gases beyond your needs and simple pleasures,
For you’ll warm and harm God’s world and many of its treasures.
And when you get to heaven, the Lord will say,
“What about those excess gases you emitted day by day,”
And when you say you do not know,
The Lord will say, “Please step below.”

I write poetry, too.

“The Colors Of Life” © 2003
Library of Congress:
ISBN 0-7951-5239-6

 

[sedonaman]

Not that it’s important, but the smelly compound is actually hydrogen sulfide - H2S.

Ender

That’s right. Now I remember.

 

[Tigg]

For Tigg a new ones

Much appreciated. I’ll add it to my growing collection.

 

[lynnvinc]

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?

Below is some info to dispel the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, at scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php This looks like a very good website to address any further doubts or confusions someone may have re AGW – see scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php . And one can always go to RealClimate.org and ask Qs or raise doubts there, or even contact scientists directly, which I have done in the past and have found them to be gracious and helpful.

No argument with the second law of thermodynamics here, that one seems to be on pretty solid ground! But the train of logic above has a subtle problem in its over statement of the constraints this law places on energy flow. Given a warmer and a cooler body exchanging energy either through convection or through radiation, the fact is, energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual molecules, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise?

When an excited molecule of CO2 releases a photon, it does not somehow “know” which way to send it. It can not aim it towards a cooler body. It is simply released in a random direction. In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, having absorbed some of the energy radiating towards space from the surface of the earth, this random choice of direction means that, roughly speaking, half of that energy is sent back. An individual molecule is not influenced at all by the temperature of the earth’s surface.

Where the second law does apply is in the net flow of heat, and this happens because a warmer body will send out more energy overall than it is receiving from the cooler one. Lots of energy going back and forth, but on balance more is leaving the warmer body.
The IPCC has provided this nice graphic of what is going on. They have also used the analogies of a blanket and a garden greenhouse in their FAQ sections.

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/ghe-ipcc.jpg

In the case of the simplified earth-atmosphere system, the Earth’s surface warms from the sun’s incoming shortwave radiation. As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18oC and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33oC, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15oC.

So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman.

As we have added to the greenhouse effect, the planet’s surface must now warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature high enough to radiate out as much again as it is now receiving.

This is all very well established and long standing physics. No basic ignored mysteries, no violations of fundamental laws, just great explanations of naturally observed phenomena all over the solar system and beyond.
Hope this clears up any doubts or confusions.

 

[lynnvinc]

RE the jnl Science, like I said earlier, I’d be less likely to doubt a scientist who’s telling us some harm is happening, esp when they have to weather harassments and death threats do tell us, than a scientist who’s telling us some environmental harm is NOT happening; I’d want at least a 2nd opinion, since the risk to life from that harm might be grave.

For instance the editor for the New England Journal of Medicine wrote a critical editorial about Sandra Steingraber’s Living Downstream: A Scientist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment. Turns out he was on the board of a big company that causes cancer.

So you’re suggesting perhaps the editors of the major science journals that publish articles about AGW are on the boards of…what?.. perhaps wind generator or solar power companies. Maybe they’re into some energy/resource efficiency/conservation products, or into electric cars. I guess if they own one, that would be the smoking gun for the denialists to prove a vast conspiracy among all the science journal editors of the world and all the climate scientists of the world, except for the handful of skeptical climate scientists nicely funded by Exxon/etc, who are of sterling character and can be trusted implicitly.

Do you really think 1000s of scientists and editors are involved in a secret conspiracy? Yes, it may be easier to get a paper published on the topic of AGW, but then AGW is a very serious problem that requires everyone’s attention (and the denialists are doing well in the book publishing business). But let’s reduce risks to life on earth by becoming as energy/resource efficient/conservative as possible & going on alt energy when feasible, while hoping that it really is a hoax, and there’s no problem at all.

Let’s destroy the evidence for AGW & befuddle the scientists by greatly reducing our GHGs

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Below is some info to dispel the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, at scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php This looks like a very good website to address any further doubts or confusions someone may have re AGW – see scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php . And one can always go to RealClimate.org and ask Qs or raise doubts there, or even contact scientists directly, which I have done in the past and have found them to be gracious and helpful.

No argument with the second law of thermodynamics here, that one seems to be on pretty solid ground! But the train of logic above has a subtle problem in its over statement of the constraints this law places on energy flow. Given a warmer and a cooler body exchanging energy either through convection or through radiation, the fact is, energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual molecules, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise?

When an excited molecule of CO2 releases a photon, it does not somehow “know” which way to send it. It can not aim it towards a cooler body. It is simply released in a random direction. In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, having absorbed some of the energy radiating towards space from the surface of the earth, this random choice of direction means that, roughly speaking, half of that energy is sent back. An individual molecule is not influenced at all by the temperature of the earth’s surface.

Where the second law does apply is in the net flow of heat, and this happens because a warmer body will send out more energy overall than it is receiving from the cooler one. Lots of energy going back and forth, but on balance more is leaving the warmer body.
The IPCC has provided this nice graphic of what is going on. They have also used the analogies of a blanket and a garden greenhouse in their FAQ sections.

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/ghe-ipcc.jpg

In the case of the simplified earth-atmosphere system, the Earth’s surface warms from the sun’s incoming shortwave radiation. As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18oC and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33oC, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15oC.

So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman.

As we have added to the greenhouse effect, the planet’s surface must now warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature high enough to radiate out as much again as it is now receiving.

This is all very well established and long standing physics. No basic ignored mysteries, no violations of fundamental laws, just great explanations of naturally observed phenomena all over the solar system and beyond.
Hope this clears up any doubts or confusions.

Water vapor? How come we haven’t burnt to a crisp then?