4
4elise
Guest
It is about a book… So here is another article about the book catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=38060
Hope you and everyone has a joyous Christmas!
- Status
Hope you and everyone has a joyous Christmas!
4
4elise
Guest
Even a kid doesn’t need to be so rude if you disagree with someone.As an “educator” , doesn’t it shame you that kids resource their sources better than you?
Catholic.com and catholic news online are good sources in my opinion… You don’t have to agree of course…
Bless you and yours
4
4elise
Guest
zenit.org/rssenglish-27755 … Or perhaps his direct comments?I seriously doubt that The Holy Father even saw this cable. 10VATICAN13 ]
It was not addressed to Him. AND I see no quotes, within this cable, of The Holy Father’s - Direct or otherwise.
How CNS came up with such as “The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.” - Within this cable, I do not know. It is false or pure spin.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Merry Christ’s Mass
Thank you for the link. However, this link doesn’t link to your original post.
I believe, The Holy Father’s comments pertaining to environmental - climate changes start on page 44 of the book.
We have already seen “spin” put into The Holy Father’s words - comments, within this book…i.e.
With the above GRAVELY WRONG interpretation of The Holy Father’s Words within this book, it is CORRECT to question your post as presented, that refers to this book. Please provide a link to the wordings of your post. Dec 15, '10 8:10 pm ].
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Sorry, this link does not support CNSs article on the cable release 10VATICAN13 ].
The cable see my post of the cable ] says nothing about…“The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”
AND this link you provided doesn’t either.
The link you provided, or rather further investigation stemming FROM your link, provides this statement made by The Holy Father.
zenit.org/article-27754?l=english
Which also… doesn’t support CNS’s coverage of 10VATICAN13 saying “The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Please don’t consider it rude of me, to express my complete astonishment when one volunteers as being an “Academic” on this thread, that they do not research before they give a resounding acceptance of a post.
If CNS were spinning in opposition of the unproven hypothesis of AGW , would you?
IMO, this is a good lesson. Even Catholics can use “spin”.
It is a shame, when a Catholic News Service seems to have done so.
J
John21652
Guest
4
4elise
Guest
Sigh…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100111_diplomatic-corps_en.html
This is the Pope’s actual speech (I think I’ve shared it with you before?)
"For this reason I share the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combatting the degradation of the environment. This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City,it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states."
No spin there - it is the Pope’s actual words - and I would think this is where CNS got it…
It won’t surprise me of course if you find some way to ‘spin’ this yourself - I think the last time we discussed this speech you were saying that he didin’t recommend a specific solution - so you can take the discussion off in that direction again - sigh - but perhaps just once you could admit that yes the Pope thinks Climate Change is something PEOPLE should be doing something about because it impacts PEOPLE -
So before you point to others, perhaps consider that it is possible that in fact even a kid can make a mistake, I know I do, and I’m no kid…
The entire ‘gotcha’ tone just makes intelligent discussion so difficult…
Some have misquoted the book - that doesn’t make the book bad, or this quote that I shared from the book -
Honestly Kimmielittle - this thread has been truly edifying for me (thank you Jason) and confirmed more deeply my belief that climate change is real, the actions of people have made it so, and as CATHOLICS we are called to try to do something - now as to what that should be, I honestly don’t know
- you know I changed my diet to a plant based diet because I believe that is something I as one person can do - so yes -Blessed Christ’s Mass to you too - may we celebrate God with us!
K
kimmielittle
Guest
The spin come from putting it in the middle of an article on the 10VATICAN13 cable - as if it was part of that cable.
I am not the only one here who has pointed out to you - there is a difference between climate change and AGW schemes.
Why would I need to spin what The Holy Father has said?
I’m not trying to sell anything - Climate Changes - The environment needs to be protected - Good Stewardship is commanded from us. THESE ARE FACTS!
Exactly what The Holy Father has said - Exactly what I have been saying.
I Need no spin. I have nothing that needs selling.
These are not dependent upon an unproven hypothesis AGW ], needing to be sold by those who support the schemes associated to it.
Hmmmmm…I’m the **only **one on this thread, when shown a mistake I made, who admitted it. No one else here has
Actually, I credit having a problem in having an intelligent discussion, with some here, to a loss of objective research, and close mindedness.
NO one said it did. This is what I DID say:
And it has left me even more troubling doubts about AGW / / CRU / IPCC and schemes associated with them. Including the science and conduct behind the organizations involved.
4
4elise
Guest
I think again there is an assumption on your part that believing that our human activity is having an impact on climate equates to accepting some specific “scheme”… I think the greatest danger is the continued disconnect that obviously exists between what is happening and the actions we can take… But if we can continue to be embroiled in the discussion of “if” we never get to “now what”…and this is where I see the Holy Father calling us…
God bless you…may your Christmas be wonderful
God bless you…may your Christmas be wonderful
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Well yes, we are offered three schemes only, by the IPCC / UN… “IF” I accepted the unproven hypothesis of AGW… as settled.
Cap and Trade
Carbon Credits
Population Control
However, if Climate Changes as it does ] we free ourselves from Politicized - Big Business associated with such schemes, we can spend that money on dealing with natural disasters caused by Climate Changes. We can spend those monies on proven environmental issues.
This is not to say that we need to de-fund science of how Climate impacts us, or we it.
But it removes reasons at least these major ones ] for bad / questionable conduct which has become umbilically attached to the unproven hypothesis of AGW.
In short: We do not need the unproven hypothesis of AGW - Or it’s schemes offered as “solutions” -Solutions, with even more questionable outcomes than AGW, itself, to be Good Stewards.
As a fact: I truly believe, that to embrace these schemes actually harms any advancement of Good Stewardship. Many environmental groups are also starting to see this, as well, and have spoken out about it.
Only when we can get others to start realizing what these ‘schemes’ - Big Business’ - Politicians have done…allowed to be done - and we demand a disenfranchise from them, will we be on the road to what The Holy Father and Catholicism expects of us… as Good Stewards.
Thank you - For you, as well
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
A must read letter from Tim Ball about his new book regarding how the science has been misused to defend AGW.
Letter was published today on climatechangedebate.org Book publication date is December 15, 2010 but so far only on Kindle on Amazon. Three reviews so far.
Re: [climatescience] Tim Ball - What’s “Slaying the Sky Dragon” ?
The book emerged from the general pattern that the climate debate has
followed. Very few people are qualified climatologists, even most of the
so-called skeptics and I am constantly distressed by the lack of knowledge
and context. This was the point of my presentation at the first Heartland
‘skeptics’ conference in New York, but was missed or not understood by most.
I heard many examples of incorrect science and witnessed many examples of
people not knowing the context of their work at that conference.
The work of Steve McIntyre was a classic example of the problem that
explains how the IPCC and CRU people were able to do what they did on such a
scale and for so long. McIntyre a statistician with special skills in
graphics displays saw the hockey stick graph at a non-climate conference and
immediately knew what was wrong and why. He knew nothing about weather or
climate an though he was aquick study he still knows very little. Climate
scientists or at least people claiming to be climatologists, especially
those working with climate models, used individual specialist components but
misused, sometimes by accident and other times deliberately and sometimes
both. A good example of this was Andrew Weaver a lead author for the climate
model chapters in the IPCC Reports who said he was a climatologist. He wrote
an article in a local newspaper and I wrote a rebuttal. He summoned me to
his office and within ten minutes I knew he knew very little about climate.
I also determined he was a computer modeller who hose ocean/atmosphere
interactions as good opportunity to test his modelling skills. He stopped
listing himself as a climatologist. Incidentally, he clearly knew he was in
danger of being exposed because I entered his office put my backpack down
and he said, “I hope you don’t have a microphone in that thing.” I replied,
“somebody’s paranoia is showing.”
I watched this pattern develop in the 1960s and 1970s as the social sciences
started applying statistics to their research. Most were escapees from
mathematics so disciplines like economics and psychology started requiring
they have some statistics training. They usually failed. As a result a book
was produced called Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). It
was packaged programs for things like Trend Surface Analysis, Spectral
Analysis, and many other forms of statistical analysis of data. All you had
to do was plug the data in and a number would pop out. It was a disaster and
thousands maybe millions of papers were produced with analysis of data that
was absolutely meaningless. One classic example you can research if you have
interest was the complete misuse of Trend Surface by British geomorphologist
Cuchlaine King. It destroyed her career.
The purpose of our book was to have me provide an overall context of
climatology as a generalist discipline and then explain how the various
specialist components were misused. Beyond the statistical and graphing
problems Mcintyre identified were the misuse of dendroclimatology. I had
worked with early tree ring specialists using a long term modern and
historical record to regress against tree rings and thus extend the
temperature record into the past. The problem, as I kept trying to tell
them was that tree rings were growth rings that were in most cases about
precipitation not temperature. The various chapters in the book are written
by specialists explaining how fundamental and devastating misuses of their
area occurred by official climate science. Sometimes in the early days in
some areas it was difficult to determine if the misuse and errors were just
that, but it became apparent to me many years ago that the pattern was too
frequent and too pervasive to be anything other than deliberate.
Tim Ball
Letter was published today on climatechangedebate.org Book publication date is December 15, 2010 but so far only on Kindle on Amazon. Three reviews so far.
Re: [climatescience] Tim Ball - What’s “Slaying the Sky Dragon” ?
The book emerged from the general pattern that the climate debate has
followed. Very few people are qualified climatologists, even most of the
so-called skeptics and I am constantly distressed by the lack of knowledge
and context. This was the point of my presentation at the first Heartland
‘skeptics’ conference in New York, but was missed or not understood by most.
I heard many examples of incorrect science and witnessed many examples of
people not knowing the context of their work at that conference.
The work of Steve McIntyre was a classic example of the problem that
explains how the IPCC and CRU people were able to do what they did on such a
scale and for so long. McIntyre a statistician with special skills in
graphics displays saw the hockey stick graph at a non-climate conference and
immediately knew what was wrong and why. He knew nothing about weather or
climate an though he was aquick study he still knows very little. Climate
scientists or at least people claiming to be climatologists, especially
those working with climate models, used individual specialist components but
misused, sometimes by accident and other times deliberately and sometimes
both. A good example of this was Andrew Weaver a lead author for the climate
model chapters in the IPCC Reports who said he was a climatologist. He wrote
an article in a local newspaper and I wrote a rebuttal. He summoned me to
his office and within ten minutes I knew he knew very little about climate.
I also determined he was a computer modeller who hose ocean/atmosphere
interactions as good opportunity to test his modelling skills. He stopped
listing himself as a climatologist. Incidentally, he clearly knew he was in
danger of being exposed because I entered his office put my backpack down
and he said, “I hope you don’t have a microphone in that thing.” I replied,
“somebody’s paranoia is showing.”
I watched this pattern develop in the 1960s and 1970s as the social sciences
started applying statistics to their research. Most were escapees from
mathematics so disciplines like economics and psychology started requiring
they have some statistics training. They usually failed. As a result a book
was produced called Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). It
was packaged programs for things like Trend Surface Analysis, Spectral
Analysis, and many other forms of statistical analysis of data. All you had
to do was plug the data in and a number would pop out. It was a disaster and
thousands maybe millions of papers were produced with analysis of data that
was absolutely meaningless. One classic example you can research if you have
interest was the complete misuse of Trend Surface by British geomorphologist
Cuchlaine King. It destroyed her career.
The purpose of our book was to have me provide an overall context of
climatology as a generalist discipline and then explain how the various
specialist components were misused. Beyond the statistical and graphing
problems Mcintyre identified were the misuse of dendroclimatology. I had
worked with early tree ring specialists using a long term modern and
historical record to regress against tree rings and thus extend the
temperature record into the past. The problem, as I kept trying to tell
them was that tree rings were growth rings that were in most cases about
precipitation not temperature. The various chapters in the book are written
by specialists explaining how fundamental and devastating misuses of their
area occurred by official climate science. Sometimes in the early days in
some areas it was difficult to determine if the misuse and errors were just
that, but it became apparent to me many years ago that the pattern was too
frequent and too pervasive to be anything other than deliberate.
Tim Ball
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
You shouldn’t, however, make sweeping generalizations about what supporters of the hypothesis believe (not to say that you do this, but it seems like you come close here). It would be foolish and unfair to assume that “AGW ‘believers” support, say, population control by means of abortion or contraception. Some do, others don’t; they are ultimately unconnected issues; if one opposes population control via such immoral means, one can still believe in the reality of AGW without contradicting oneself. People who join the two issues together have an agenda in mind that long preexists their belief in AGW, and which they would doubtless pursue with or without the pretense of “fixing” the global warming problem.
However, one shouldn’t assume that depoliticized research will necessarily find AGW to be a false theory, nor should one assume that any research that might support AGW is necessarily politicized. Whatever one’s position on the matter, it is important to approach it with an open mind. My personal opinion on the matter, is that people who find see the AGW hypothesis thoroughly discredited by the misbehavior of a few scientists take (ironically) an overly unscrupulous view of scientists, in a strange way. “’The scientists’ said AGW was real, people believed them, but then a couple of them sent controversial emails to each other, everyone felt deceived, and stopped believing in AGW (of course, most who don’t now didn’t to begin with); but really, what “the scientists” do is not as relevant to the point as so many think. The issue of global warming is not overly esoteric, and I think many “lay people” could easily understand a good deal of the science behind it without having to put blind trust in the Ph.d possessing elites. Since I am of the opinion that AGW is most likely real, I think that one can arrive at this conclusion simply from evaluating the logical conclusions of essentially undisputed laws of chemistry and a little extracurricular reading about climatology. I would also hope that those who disagree with me would arrive at their conclusions from their own evaluations of the subject rather than from what the authorities on the matter say.
Unfortunately, we cannot all agree about what to do about environmental problems when we do not all agree about which environmental problems are happening and how severe they are. Of course, there is no reason we cannot all pursue solutions to problems we can agree about, even while pursuing different ends on the ones which there is disagreement about.
L
laszlo
Guest
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,
Man is supposed to rule the Earth and not the Earth the man. We are responsible for the environment.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Yes, and God gave man dominion over the creatures. That means we are kings. The problem with us Americans is we don’t really understand what it means to be a king. We think a king is a person who takes in wealth for himself, and willy nilly lops off heads. But the true meaning of king is one who is responsible for the welfare of the entire kingdom. It is the most onerous of responsibilities.
And the Bible is correct, bec de facto we already have taken over the earth, even changing its climate, etc. So we need to grow into our role of having “dominion” over it – taking responsbility for its welfare. God told Adam & Eve to “keep the garden” – his first command. We have not done well in this.
But as long as there’s life, there’s hope that we will reform and carry out our awesome responsibility and duty through the grace and redemption offered by Jesus.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Dominion means you’re at the top of the food chain.
Dominion
Origin: LL. Dominio, equiv. To L. Dominium. See domain, dungeon.
Dominion
- Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling; independent right of possession, use, and control; sovereignty; supremacy. I praised and honored him that liveth forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion. (dan. Iv. 34) To choose between dominion or slavery. (Jowett (Thucyd))
- Superior prominence; predominance; ascendency. Objects placed foremost ought . . . Have dominion over things confused and transient. (Dryden)
- That which is governed; territory over which authority is exercised; the tract, district, or county, considered as subject; as, the dominions of a king. Also used figuratively; as, the dominion of the passions.
- A supposed high order of angels; dominations. See Domination. By him were all things created . . . Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. (col. I. 16)
Origin: LL. Dominio, equiv. To L. Dominium. See domain, dungeon.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Borrowed from someone else:
… But my memory tells me that my Catholic upbringing did in fact mention that animals did NOT have souls and that we could therefore do what we liked to them and with them. There was never any mention of looking after them, unless it was for our own self-interest. Thus, I have to ask again, are you sure that the Vatican agrees with you that “All living things must have souls”? If they do, then the church has certainly changed its position on the subject over the last 60 years, but I doubt that they could do so on such an important concept as The Soul. It would be like doing away or upgrading Genesis or the Old Testament itself.
The quote that I took from Genesis mentions Man being made in the image of God. There is no mention of doing the same with other animals. It only mentions animals to say that Man may have control over them. That does not sound to me as though Genesis means you to understand that animals also have a soul.
So, whether from the Church or somewhere else in the Bible, you can show me where it is stated, that “animals have souls”, I have to infer, for the time being, that the problem of us Human beings finding ourselves 95% subordinate to an animal does not square up with the concept that we are special and made in the image of God.
There is no need for it to be interpreted by others.
… But my memory tells me that my Catholic upbringing did in fact mention that animals did NOT have souls and that we could therefore do what we liked to them and with them. There was never any mention of looking after them, unless it was for our own self-interest. Thus, I have to ask again, are you sure that the Vatican agrees with you that “All living things must have souls”? If they do, then the church has certainly changed its position on the subject over the last 60 years, but I doubt that they could do so on such an important concept as The Soul. It would be like doing away or upgrading Genesis or the Old Testament itself.
The quote that I took from Genesis mentions Man being made in the image of God. There is no mention of doing the same with other animals. It only mentions animals to say that Man may have control over them. That does not sound to me as though Genesis means you to understand that animals also have a soul.
So, whether from the Church or somewhere else in the Bible, you can show me where it is stated, that “animals have souls”, I have to infer, for the time being, that the problem of us Human beings finding ourselves 95% subordinate to an animal does not square up with the concept that we are special and made in the image of God.
There is no need for it to be interpreted by others.
E
Ender
Guest
And now the scientific argument about whether or not the theory of AGW is valid is answered with “People who disagree with it are evil.” That pretty much sums up the amount of science involved.
Ender
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Of course, because as I sit here and look at my copy of John Houghton’s book “Global Warming: A Complete Briefing” I’m sure that all he does is repeat that exact sentence over and over again, for 430 pages. But wait, now that I open it, i see that there are all kinds of graphs, and numbers, and all this stuff about chemistry and oceanography and such. I could read the book, and then develop an informed opinion on the quality of the science… or I could put it down and just assume that it’s all nonsense! How much time I would save! Just imagine what other problems I can solve just by assuming them away! What a discovery!
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
By all means read Houghton’s book.
But if you want to study science, you can’t limit yourself to just one book. Science doesn’t work that way.
You need to read multiple sources.
For example, go here:
amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437/ref=pd_sim_b_3
and read this whole book and learn how the scientists deliberately not only fabricated data AND DESTROYED THE ORIGINAL DATA … but they also conspired to deceive the public.
Read the book.
And when you click on the link, there are a bunch of other books that will come up, such as the debunking of the hockey stick and others.
As discussed earlier there are more than 30 scandals involving fraudulent science.
If you engaged in 30 fraudulent accounting practices on your tax return, you would have to account to the Internal Revenue Service for all 30 of them and you would have to account for EVERY PENNY and you would be penalized for a perjured signature and you would go to prison for a long time.
There are more than 30 frauds involving the science of global warming.
You need to account for all of them.
- Status