Catholicism and Climate Change

[Ender]

Ha! If it would only be held to the same standard it would be a major breakthrough. Sadly, as long as some people choose to reject it purely and simply because it is funded, with no evidence of actual malfeasance, I can’t see that happening.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on what constitutes malfeasance. I am more inclined to agree with this gentleman:

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.)* I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.***"

Part of his letter of resignation from the American Physical Society sent by Emeritus Professor of Physics (UC Santa Barbara) Harold Lewis.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Ender

 

[JasonSB]

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on what constitutes malfeasance. I am more inclined to agree with this gentleman:

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.)* I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.***"

Part of his letter of resignation from the American Physical Society sent by Emeritus Professor of Physics (UC Santa Barbara) Harold Lewis.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Ender

Given the accuracy of the rest of his statement, and the statements he made prior to Climategate that prove he was already of the same opinion regarding climate science, I’m afraid I don’t find his claims of “revulsion” all that convincing.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7155190&postcount=670

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7158044&postcount=673

I don’t believe any scientist to was actually familiar with the topic at hand and understood what the emails were actually saying would find anything remarkable.

 

[John21652]

The debate is over. The notion that Climate change catastrophe is upon us has been debunked. No-one believes it anymore. Except, that is, the political totalitarians who wish to control every facet of our lives.

From this survey

77% of people think climate change is due to natural processes.

82.9% think the IPCC is a corrupt orgnization, prone to groupthink.

Time to stop Reading Other People’s Graphs and to get on with life.

 

[Calliso]

The debate is over. The notion that Climate change catastrophe is upon us has been debunked. No-one believes it anymore. Except, that is, the political totalitarians who wish to control every facet of our lives.

From this survey

77% of people think climate change is due to natural processes.

82.9% think the IPCC is a corrupt orgnization, prone to groupthink.

Time to stop Reading Other People’s Graphs and to get on with life.

Wow a opinion poll from I am not even sure where proves that AGW has been debunked! Gee I didn;t know that public opinion controls what is true or not! Oh wait it doesn;t sorry the evidence still supports AGW despite what some people may choose to believe. But really it would be cool if public opinion could change facts well at least in some cases.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The debate is over. The notion that Climate change catastrophe is upon us has been debunked. No-one believes it anymore. Except, that is, the political totalitarians who wish to control every facet of our lives.

From this survey

77% of people think climate change is due to natural processes.

82.9% think the IPCC is a corrupt orgnization, prone to groupthink.

Time to stop Reading Other People’s Graphs and to get on with life.

[good lord]

[Can’t trust these guys with anything. I step away for a few days and … ]

Look: Man-made Global Warming was doing just fine until Al Gore started telling Polar Bear Stories. At that point, even the five-year-olds gave up on AGW.

Then we got the thousand emails from East Anglia and the thing about the frat-boy grad-student bar room story about the glaciers melting in Tibet.

I mean … like … 16 or 17 years ago, we even ACCEPTED Al Gore’s ten-years-until-the-tipping-point stories …

Then Al Gore had to hit up George Soros for a loan and then Tipper walked out.

After that everybody went out and got a drink.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Posted today.

You absolutely have to read this:

“Inside the Climate Fraud”

americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/inside_the_climate_fraud.html

 

[portarica]

The debate is over. The notion that Climate change catastrophe is upon us has been debunked. No-one believes it anymore. Except, that is, the political totalitarians who wish to control every facet of our lives.

From this survey

77% of people think climate change is due to natural processes.

82.9% think the IPCC is a corrupt orgnization, prone to groupthink.

Time to stop Reading Other People’s Graphs and to get on with life.

Wow 23% don’t know that climate change is influenced by natural causes, even the AGW adherents know that there is more than one reason for climate change.

This evidenced that in the survey over 50% of those surveyed said that there were reasons other natural reasons for the change in climate.

We know this a is a bogus survey because you couldn’t find 82% of people who know what IPCC even stands for unless you were at a IPCC conference.

Peace

 

[John21652]

We know this a is a bogus survey because you couldn’t find 82% of people who know what IPCC even stands for unless you were at a IPCC conference.

Peace

Sorry to dissapoint you, but where I live the IPCC has been in the headlines for years. More so when the email scandals came to light. And the IPCC Chairman has been villified in the press as though there were an inquisition. Even kids at school are taught what the IPCC is. The only ones who wouldn’t know are those who live under rocks.

 

[4elise]

I am always happy to read that the Pope knows more than I do about the Catholic Church and about Global Warming. “What I meant to say…” was that the “Science” of Global Warming is not a religious issue (or something like that) but, our good Pope believes and, of course, I completely do too, that the facts change what may have once been a matter of “opinion” into a far more serious and deadly matter. When you know an avalanche is coming and you fail to take all the measures required to protect others, the whole world, in this case, then “silence” is not an option and the good Pope showed his willingness to go where the weak and frail in body, spirit and wisdom are afraid to go.
Pope Benedict XVI is to be admired for leading us, Catholics, where many are unwilling to go due to ignorance, laziness or whatever. He may have further steps in mind to those willing to put 6 Billion souls at risk due to laziness. Will God have mercy on their souls? There is too much evidence of Global Warming -already. Two recent findings:
I. “National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Aiguo Dai used an ensemble of 22 climate models and a review of previous studies to update global drought projections. Dai found a long-term drying trend over much of the world’s surface from 1900 to 2008, which was largely driven by increases in temperature. Models relying on the bes
t available emission scenarios project increased drying in just the next 30 years, with the worst impacts in the western U.S., Central America, western South America, much of Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and southern Australia. “If the projections in this study come even close to being realized,” Dai said, “the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous.” The study was published in the October 19, 2010 Early View of WIREs Climate Change.”
II. 2010 Sea Ice Extent Third-Lowest on Record.

Well said … Our courageous Holy Father knows this is a moral issue because of the impact on people everywhere! Blessing and welcome to CAF

 

[Ender]

Well said … Our courageous Holy Father knows this is a moral issue because of the impact on people everywhere! Blessing and welcome to CAF

I must have missed his statement confirming the science behind the theory of AGW. Can you cite it for us?

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Posted today.

You absolutely have to read this:

“Inside the Climate Fraud”

americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/inside_the_climate_fraud.html

The American Stinker mentioned some thermometers placed near hot vents, but it forgot to mention all those placed by climate change denialists inside air-conditioned rooms, or how they pack ice around them.

Now let’s face it, as you climate change denialists so often point out there are many many more denialists than accepters of AGW, to when you figure their impact on finagling the thermometers and data it is truly amazing that we see any warming…which we do!

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?

Well.l.l.l. since you seem heck bent on forcing an answer, from me
The Question:

What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”? The reason I ask is because judging from your use of the phrase it seems everything is.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That there is a “scientist” here representing AGW… and because of an appeal to authority fallacy in logic, He can prove AGW.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That that “scientist” presents objectivity.

An unproven hypothesis, by some here, That AGW is settled science

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That IPCC is a body of scientists without conflict of interests.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That big oil / energy isn’t involved with CRU but only with Skeptics.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That solutions offered by IPCC / UN toward AGW “mitigation” …is feasible…is safe…is healthy…benefits the poor…stops climate change…reverses any warming.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That the Royal Society has it right when they say such nonsense as:.
*

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”

*An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That The Holy Father endorses the unproven hypothesis of AGW and it’s solutions

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That… Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That AGW is Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor” .

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That “Climate Change” not secondary observations ] can undergo Poppers Falsifiability test.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That the “missing heat is in the pipeline” someplace. Oh wait, it’s the accelerator sticking ]

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That man and CO2 …not Nature is the major control of Climate.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That not believing the evidence presented, is the same as knowledge of the evidence offered. Case in point - recent poll offered as evidence where the poll actually tries to make the point that not believing… is the same as poor knowledge of biology. As reported by the National Geographic link offered - 2nd lead paragraph : Note it does take a critical mind to see the associations implied

A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of biological science in the United States.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That it’s “malfeasance” for some to accept “oil money” for research, travel, etc BUT it’s “science funding” for promoters of AGW who supposedly use the “oil money” for what? Wait for it …“research, travel, etc”.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That somehow you are anti-science, if you don’t embrace all pseudo scientific unproven hypothesis

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That Man can change Climate Change

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That A slightly warmer temperature is more harmful than the temperatures of 1990’s - 1940’s - 1970’s - etc etc.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That CO2 is the main driver of climate

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That People don’t understand AGW or the IPCC

After 20 years, billions of dollars in scientific research and advertising campaigns, cooperation from the public schools, TV specials and concerts by a gaggle of entertainers, end-of-the-world movies, our ‘best’ politicians, heads of state, presidents, the United Nations, and complicity by most of the news media, it has been decided that the American public is not getting the message on global warming!?

drroyspencer.com/

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That Models provide unbiased evidence. Models reflect what’s fed into them via raw data, baselines, etc etc they are made to “feed” an unproven hypothesis. The very fact that models have to be fed TO THE unproven hypothesis -proves their bias.

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That IPCC, as the bible of AGW, and 100% peer reviewed is something to rely on.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of **peer-reviewed ** literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

Yet…

noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-falls-for-press-release-masquerade.html
nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/press-release-masquerade-part-2.html

nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-reliance-on-grey-literature-30.html

nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-left-if-we-disregard-non-peer.html

Many links more…

Holy bat guano…It doesn’t leave me much room as to AGW and what I think is NOT an unproven hypothesis associated with it.

 

[kimmielittle]

The American Stinker mentioned some thermometers placed near hot vents, but it forgot to mention all those placed by climate change denialists inside air-conditioned rooms, or how they pack ice around them.

Can you provide any evidence of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center doing this?

You see, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center is in control of these stations…Including PLACEMENT.

Maybe, you forgot to mention you had no idea?

Now let’s face it, as you climate change denialists so often point out there are many many more denialists than accepters of AGW, to when you figure their impact on finagling the thermometers and data it is truly amazing that we see any warming…which we do!

Hey! we are all for a slight warming - It saves 174,000 lives in the USA, a year, over colder temperatures, after all.

What we object to, is hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts, name calling and association to holocaust deniers, as in the above accusations, made by you.

It’s O’kay though, Us “denialist” seem to be the majority of the public…so it would be you, the minority as you pointed out for us], that is “denying” the “consensus” a word you folks like to use so much ]. I hope you enjoy the word “denialist” , as I have a feeling the usage of such terms - has turned on AGW’ers.

 

[JasonSB]

Well.l.l.l. since you seem heck bent on forcing an answer, from me
The Question:
What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”? The reason I ask is because judging from your use of the phrase it seems everything is.

(Italics in original converted to bold for clarity.)

… Many weird and wonderful examples of “unproven hypotheses” deleted …]

And yet you still can’t answer one simple little question even after pretending to “give in” and answer it.

Since you can’t find anything that is not an “unproven hypothesis”, I rest my case – your definition of the phrase “unproven hypothesis” is “everything”, rendering the term meaningless. Which is just as well, because almost all your examples showed some very confused thinking on your part.

 

[kimmielittle]

(Italics in original converted to bold for clarity.)

… Many weird and wonderful examples of “unproven hypotheses” deleted …]

And yet you still can’t answer one simple little question even after pretending to “give in” and answer it.

I’m sorry, it seems confusion has overtaken your scientific mind, once again. I did answer it.

Holy bat guano…It doesn’t leave me much room as to AGW and what I think is NOT an unproven hypothesis associated with it.

BUT I do admit, not the way you intended for me to answer it

Since you can’t find anything that is not an “unproven hypothesis”,

ABSOLUTELY!!! When it comes to AGW and IPCC/UN. I find NOTHING - in what I presented below, that isn’t based upon an unproven hypothesis - Something, I’ve stated throughout this thread and many others.

I rest my case – your definition of the phrase “unproven hypothesis” is ** “everything”,**

Evidence? Provide your evidence for this subjective speculation, please. You are the one making this claim. There are over 3000+ posts, by me, here - in those 3000+ posts, you can, surely, backup this nonsensical claim that I have applied the term, “unproven hypothesis” to **“everything” **. Surely, a “scientist” understands the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim?

Once again, your confusion arises.

Which is just as well, because almost all your examples showed some very confused thinking on your part.

Only, if you provide evidence other than they are “unproven hypothesis”, as I presented them.

 

[JasonSB]

I’m sorry, it seems confusion has overtaken your scientific mind, once again. I did answer it.

The question was “What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”?”

Anything other than an example of something that is not an “unproven hypothesis” is not an answer to the question.

Once again: Why won’t you give any examples?

My hypothesis is because there are none. To disprove this hypothesis, you need only give examples, yet despite being given multiple opportunties, so far you have failed to do so. Therefore the hypothesis has been tested and is now a theory – Jason’s Theory of Kimmie’s Interpretation of the Phrase “Unproven Hypothesis”.

BUT I do admit, not the way you intended for me to answer it

Actually, according to my hypothesis/theory, you cannot answer it, so I’m pretty pleased now that my hypothesis has been promoted to a theory.

ABSOLUTELY!!! When it comes to AGW and IPCC/UN. I find NOTHING - in what I presented below, that isn’t based upon an unproven hypothesis - Something, I’ve stated throughout this thread and many others.

Note that I never limited the question to AGW. I’m interested in any scientific theories that you do not consider an “unproven hypothesis”. I know that you automatically label anything relating to AGW as an “unproven hypothesis”, what I wanted to know was if there was anything else that didn’t attract the label so I could determine what you meant by it – because, obviously, you aren’t using the usual definitions, as I’ve already shown in earlier posts by giving examples of testable predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

Evidence? Provide your evidence for this subjective speculation, please.

The very fact that you hvae failed to provide a single example despite multiple opportunities to do so. If there was an exception then you would have provided it by now and my hypothesis would have been disproven.

You are the one making this claim. There are over 3000+ posts, by me, here - in those 3000+ posts, you can, surely, backup this nonsensical claim that I have applied the term, “unproven hypothesis” to **“everything” **. Surely, a “scientist” understands the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim?

Like any scientific theory, mine can never be proven, only disproven. It made a testable prediction that you would be unable to provide any examples that you thought were not “unproven hypotheses”. The prediction was tested. You failed to provide examples. The hypothesis passed. QED.

Only, if you provide evidence other than they are “unproven hypothesis”, as I presented them.

Why? Many have already been refuted on this very thread and yet you seem completely oblivious to that. I can only assume that you do not currently have the mental acuity necessary to understand that, and, like my attempts at explaining lambda, repeating them would be a waste of time – you would simply pop up a little while later and repeat exactly the same claims yet again as if I never responded.

There is a very good reason why education starts simple and works its way up to more complex concepts. The dangerous period is when you have learned enough to think you know it all and yet haven’t learned enough to understand the explanations that you don’t.

I can sort of understand an a-priori conviction, but I would have thought that most people, upon realising that their understanding of the subject at hand is extremely limited (e.g. your gross misinterpretation of the anomaly chart in degrees C, or your inability to see immediately what was wrong with trying to use the IPCC’s equilibrium climate sensitivity to predict current temperatures) would be very wary of not only judging experts in the field but of casting aspersions on those experts in a public forum before educating themselves to the point where they can make informed judgements.

 

[kimmielittle]

The question was “What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”?”

Anything other than an example of something that is not an “unproven hypothesis” is not an answer to the question.

Once again: Why won’t you give any examples?

My hypothesis is because there are none. To disprove this hypothesis, you need only give examples, yet despite being given multiple opportunties, so far you have failed to do so. Therefore the hypothesis has been tested and is now a theory – Jason’s Theory of Kimmie’s Interpretation of the Phrase “Unproven Hypothesis”.

Jason’s little scientific mind and his flawed hypothesis, is disproved by the obvious…“Climate - Changes” “Climate Warms” - “Climate Cools”. ALL are “PROVENS”. I’m sorry, did I need to state the obvious for you? Why would you even need to ask such a nonsensical question, to such a looming obvious answer? I thought you had a “scientific” mind

Actually, according to my hypothesis/theory, you cannot answer it, so I’m pretty pleased now that my hypothesis has been promoted to a theory.

Actually, no. It just shows ignorance, IMO. BUT continue on

Note that I never limited the question to AGW. I’m interested in any scientific theories that you do not consider an “unproven hypothesis”.

Note: that I knew you were trying to take this thread - off topic. This thread is about AGW. I even warned you.

I know that you automatically label anything relating to AGW as an “unproven hypothesis”,

Actually, wrong once again. I have stated many times, “Climate Changes”. That IS a “proven”, but evidently someone, needs to explain it better, for you.

what I wanted to know was if there was anything else that didn’t attract the label so I could determine what you meant by it – because, obviously, you aren’t using the usual definitions, as I’ve already shown in earlier posts by giving examples of testable predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

Even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day. Make enough “predictions” …AND there have been no shortage of those, made by the AGW camp.

The very fact that you hvae failed to provide a single example despite multiple opportunities to do so. If there was an exception then you would have provided it by now and my hypothesis would have been disproven.

Actually, I didn’t think I’d have to make it so simple, for you a “scientist”.

Like any scientific theory, mine can never be proven,

You are sure of this? What avenue of science are you in again? You could prove your theory - simply by giving supporting evidence, to support your claim. I offered 3000+ posts disproving it.

only disproven. It made a testable prediction that you would be unable to provide any examples that you thought were not “unproven hypotheses”. The prediction was tested. You failed to provide examples. The hypothesis passed. QED.

IMO it would be a shame to hear you actually taught science, after the two above separated statements.

Why? Many have already been refuted on this very thread and yet you seem completely oblivious to that.

How about tackling this one?

An unproven hypothesis, held by some here, That it’s “malfeasance” for some to accept “oil money” for research, travel, etc BUT it’s “science funding” for promoters of AGW who supposedly use the “oil money” for what? Wait for it …“research, travel, etc”.

I mean, you have stated much about the “malfeasance” of skeptics receiving funding, many times, here.

I can only assume that you do not currently have the mental acuity necessary to understand that

AWWWwwwww… If you mean, you, a “scientist” , can not sell your wares of AGW, as its presented, or the solutions, or the sainthood of CRU and IPCC/ UN…

and, like my attempts at explaining lambda, repeating them would be a waste of time.

You definitely tried, but you see, you only explained that AGW scientists use a range of values in accounting for sensitivities. If they scientists ] can’t even agree on the amount of sensitivity…THE heart of AGW warming???

There is a very good reason why education starts simple and works its way up to more complex concepts. The dangerous period is when you have learned enough to think you know it all and yet haven’t learned enough to understand the explanations that you don’t.

Yet, you, a “scientist”, seem not able to address my list, as stated, of “unproven hypothesis”.

I can sort of understand an a-priori conviction, but I would have thought that most people, upon realising that their understanding of the subject at hand is extremely limited (e.g. your gross misinterpretation of the anomaly chart in degrees C, or your inability to see immediately what was wrong with trying to use the IPCC’s equilibrium climate sensitivity to predict current temperatures) would be very wary of not only judging experts in the field but of casting aspersions on those experts in a public forum before educating themselves to the point where they can make informed judgements.

Actually, I have attacked the unproven hypothesis of AGW - without having to be a “scientist” - using mostly, the actions, words, claims USED by AGW scientists. Maybe, it’s time you “scientists” step back and see just how flimsy an argument you make for AGW, when your actions, words, claims come back on you.

It is death by their own hands, IMO.

 

[Ender]

Actually, I have attacked the unproven hypothesis of AGW - without having to be a “scientist” - using mostly, the actions, words, claims USED by AGW scientists.

Regardless of whether some of your interpretations were not altogether accurate, the point you make here is a significant one. That a student can make such a vigorous defense against a specific scientific position is a reasonable indicator that the position is itself unsettled.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Regardless of whether some of your interpretations were not altogether accurate, the point you make here is a significant one. That a student can make such a vigorous defense against a specific scientific position is a reasonable indicator that the position is itself unsettled.

Ender

Thank you

Here is another student. I’m not allowed to d/l utubes but his utubes have received good reviews ] on UHI
youtube.com/user/TheseData

A comparison of GISS data for the last 111 years show US cities getting warmer but rural sites are not increasing in temperature at all. Urban Heat Islands may be the only areas warming.

There are a number of utubes made by him about AGW.

Of course, this flies in the face of what Wang - Jones 1990 says about UHI and other claims.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/

Peter was in the 6th grade when he did these utubes.

 

[4elise]

I must have missed his statement confirming the science behind the theory of AGW. Can you cite it for us?

Ender

voanews.com/english/news/Pope-Denounces-Failure-of-Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Negotiations-81225017.html

No, no direct “confirmation of the science”… Just disappointment …