Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

[JanetF]

Thank you for weighing in on this matter!!

 

[robertmidwest]

The consensus of the scientific community shifts all the time. For example:

huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10802_b_8913974.html

Now that the world entomological community is in general agreement that the United States and global honeybee population is not, and has never been, threatened with extinction by pesticides, the focus of advocacy concern has suddenly shifted to wild bees.

Is the pattern familiar? First we “Global Cooling” in the 1970’s, that morphed in “Global Warming”, that is now “Climate Change” (which is very convenient since the climate is going to change over 5000 years).

 

[robertmidwest]

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the** body of the Church’s social teaching**”

Are you arguing this is the line from Laudato Si’ somehow proves that the church teaches man made global warming is a fact?

 

[pnewton]

The consensus of the scientific community shifts all the time. For example:

Of course it does. But it is a greater mistake to disregard science because of the nature of the scientific method, that is, to refuse to accept knowledge because it is imperfect and fallible, or to become an anti-intellectual Luddite.

 

[lynnvinc]

The OP stated in the first post that it was time to end the debate. You just did.

You think you have the moral authority to tell others that they are not living up to church teaching based on what you admitted you think and assume? On one hand I want to applaud you for having the hutzpah to admit this, but one the other I don’t think you really intended to let the truth out.

There is the argument that the left leads with their emotions rather than logic or facts. Your statement here supports that argument. You believe the church teaches MMGW as fact, because that is what you wanted to see in Laudato Si’. What, in your own words, you “think” is in there.

It’s not moral “authority,” but moral duty. If I don’t tell people about the problem of CC and the need to mitigate it then the sin falls back on me.

I’ve done my duty, now the ball is in the court of those I have told.

If you are already mitigating CC to you best ability and feasibility, then God bless you.

 

[lynnvinc]

As they say on trial shows “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
No one argues that there has not been warming, but it is an open question as to whether it is continuing, and this indicates the scope of the problem: even with all the focus on the subject, and the instrumentation devoted to it, scientists still cannot agree on whether there was a hiatus in warming, and if there was, whether it has ended.
What is indicated here is an inability to distinguish an insult from an argument. I have several times posted this link to a paper that just came out in April which makes the claim thatonce just the Natural Factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all.
Whether their analysis is accurate doesn’t change the fact that the people who made it are well acquainted with the field.
None of which changes the facts of the matter, which don’t appear to support the theory.this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed.
Apparently “denier” applies to anyone who believes a statement is probably not true if the evidence doesn’t support it. But I’m sure all this can be dismissed simply by labeling me a Trump supporter and a cafeteria Catholic.

Ender

You have to understand that this is mainly about the future. I started mitigating CC in 1990, the year JPII told us we should do so – before evidence had reach stat significance at the p<.05 level (which first studies was reached in 1995).

Even if for some reason there had been some pause or cooling since then (due to other factors, such as aerosols emitted the same time CO2 is emitted, or volcanic eruptions, etc), we would still be called to mitigate CC based on the well-established GH theory and past evidence of it, with the aim of preventing harms in the future.

That mitigating CC also mitigates a host of other problems AND saves money is all the more reason to do so.

BTW, that link you gave is NOT to a peer-reviewed study of CC, even tho one or two of the authors are climate scientists (who are known to be skeptics and have given wrong information in the past). Here’s something that may help you to understand Christy- realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/comment-page-3/

 

[lynnvinc]

Are you arguing this is the line from Laudato Si’ somehow proves that the church teaches man made global warming is a fact?

It does an admirable job of explaining CC, but its main thrust is to instruct us to mitigate it.

Remember the Pope is no dumb-bunny, he as background in science, and he has the Pontifical Academy of Science to back him up.

The Church is not anti-science, and it is more keenly interested in scientific facts that impact life, which is why JPII, BXVI and now Pope Francis have all written that we should mitigate CC.

Let me ask, what is wrong with turning out lights not in use, and some 100s of other things we could be doing that really don’t harm us, but could help save lives if we all joined together and did the right things.

 

[Cathoholic]

Lynnvinc.

You’ve paraded out a host of irrelevant points as to what robertmidwest asked of you.

Remember the Pope is no dumb-bunny . . .

Nobody here suggested this (so why attack this straw man that you’ve invented?)

The Church is not anti-science . . .

Nobody here is suggesting such non-sense.

(The Church) is more keenly interested in scientific facts that impact life. . .

So what? Nobody is denying this.

. . . which is why JPII, BXVI and now Pope Francis have all written that we should mitigate CC. . . .

You are doing the same bait and switch that robertmidwest has taken you to task here for.

Let me ask, what is wrong with turning out lights not in use, and some 100s of other things we could be doing that really don’t harm us, but could help save lives if we all joined together and did the right things.

Many of us are already doing these things. But it really ignores Robert’s questions for you doesn’t it?

Let me ask, what is wrong with staying on the subject you were asked about concerning Church teaching?

BTW, that link you gave is NOT to a peer-reviewed study of CC, even tho one or two of the authors are climate scientists (who are known to be skeptics and have given wrong information in the past). Here’s something that may help you to understand Christy- realclimate.org/index.php…omment-page-3/

Lynnvinc.

Interesting appealing to real climate to undermine a link given to you.

Especially given that apparent fake Nobel Prize “winner” Michael Mann is associated with real climate.

New Global Warming Film Repeats Climate Scientist’s Fake Nobel Prize Claim

. . . Climate scientist Michael Mann, known for his “hockey stick” global warming chart, is featured prominently in Fox’s film, “How To Let Go of the World -and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change,” as a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in 2007 — a patently false claim. . . .

. . . "Mann has been called out on many occasions for falsely claiming he is a Nobel Peace prize winner,” wrote McAleer . . .

. . ."The committee has always been quite clear that he is not a Peace Prize winner,” McAleer wrote.

Mann even repeated the claim in his lawsuit against conservative pundit Mark Steyn and National Review, despite the fact the Nobel committee has said Mann is not a laureate. Both National Review and the Environmental Policy Examiner contacted the Nobel committee to see if it recognizes Mann as a prize winner.

Here’s what it told the Environmental Policy Examiner:

1. Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

1. He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

1. The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

. . . For years, Mann claimed on his personal web page he “shared” the Nobel Prize with the IPCC and others.

Now, Man’s personal page only claims he “contributed” to the IPCC’s winning the Nobel in 2007.

“Even after all these public announcements Mann continued to make the claim and perhaps most embarrassingly of all was forced to change a sworn affidavit in a court case after he again made the fake claim,” . . .

dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/new-global-warming-film-repeats-climate-scientists-fake-nobel-prize-claim/

 

[Ender]

But it is a greater mistake to disregard science because of the nature of the scientific method, that is, to refuse to accept knowledge because it is imperfect and fallible, or to become an anti-intellectual Luddite.

That isn’t the issue here. This has never been a question between science on one side and delusion on the other, rather it has always been about the proper interpretation of the information gathered by scientific experiment. You’ve drawn your conclusions, we’ve drawn ours. It would seem the difficulty is in defending your position, which is why there are so many appeals to “consensus”, and “moral duty” rather than the supporting science.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You have to understand that this is mainly about the future. I started mitigating CC in 1990, the year JPII told us we should do so – before evidence had reach stat significance at the p<.05 level (which first studies was reached in 1995).

This is another “just take my word for it” claim. A 95% confidence level was claimed in 1995, about three years before the warming hiatus that none of the models anticipated. Once again the theory was contradicted by the facts.

Even if for some reason there had been some pause or cooling since then (due to other factors, such as aerosols emitted the same time CO2 is emitted, or volcanic eruptions, etc), we would still be called to mitigate CC based on the well-established GH theory and past evidence of it, with the aim of preventing harms in the future.

As I said earlier: how can reconstructions be considered valid when scientists can’t even agree about what’s been happening over the last 20 years? If we can’t tell what the global temperature has been even using the most sensitive instruments available how can we claim to be able to reconstruct it from tree rings and mud deposits?

As for the well established greenhouse theory, this again assumes much more than is known. We do know generally how greenhouse gases affect temperature, but we really have only a cursory understanding of how all aspects of the climate interact. We’re guessing about the sensitivity to change.

That mitigating CC also mitigates a host of other problems AND saves money is all the more reason to do so.

It is possible for individuals to reduce their CO2 output and save money - especially if their actions are subsidized - but governments cannot do the same thing without gargantuan investments. We know this by looking at the countries that have tried (Spain, Germany…)

BTW, that link you gave is NOT to a peer-reviewed study of CC…

This is an argument for ignoring science. Precisely the charge leveled against the contras.

…one or two of the authors are climate scientists (who are known to be skeptics and have given wrong information in the past).

Another argument to ignore their work rather than deal with it. The one thing notable to me about this paper was the transparency of the work. They explained exactly what they did and made all of their data available to anyone who wanted to recreate their work or challenge what they’ve done. This is in the starkest contrast to the work done by e.g. Hansen, Jones, Mann et al who went out of their way to keep others from seeing exactly what they did. They non-complied with FOIA requests and denied access to their code and data at every turn. Which seems the more scientific approach to you?

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

This is another “just take my word for it” claim. A 95% confidence level was claimed in 1995, about three years before the warming hiatus that none of the models anticipated.

The 1995 conclusion was based on some 30 years of data…which is about what you need to establish a warming (or cooling) trend, since there are other short-term factors that impact climate, which are not always easy to predict so as to include in future projections…

For instance, no one anticipated that strong of an el nino in 1998 hiking the global average temp way up (making succeeding non-el-nino years look not so hot). However, they all knew that el ninos impact climate temporarily, increasing the warming (GW+strong el nino).

No one anticipated a rather longer and deeper solar minima in the years after that, though they all knew solar minima cause cooling (in this case following the 1998 hike in warming making it seem like a “pause” when there was still warming, but not at a significant level). (Note: one should NOT cherry pick 1998 as the start date for seeing if there has been some warming or not in the 10 to 15 years succeeding that year, since it takes more than 20 years to establish a pattern due to these other variables.)

No one anticipated that the deeper ocean would uptake the amount of warming it did (they base the warming stats on surface temps), but they knew that it could (even as early as in a 1988 paper by Hansen).

I guess the problem for scientists is that they need a better way to predict when these short-term variables will be kicking in and out.

To his credit, Hansen would include a hypothetical volcanic eruption (with cooling effect) in his projections, and he was fairly accurate in his projections.

 

[Ender]

The 1995 conclusion was based on some 30 years of data…which is about what you need to establish a warming (or cooling) trend, since there are other short-term factors that impact climate, which are not always easy to predict so as to include in future projections.

But surely the relevant point is this: for all their claims of 95% confidence, shortly after the claim their projections were all shown to be in error.

For instance, no one anticipated that strong of an el nino in 1998 …
No one anticipated a rather longer and deeper solar minima in the years after that…
To his credit, Hansen would include a hypothetical volcanic eruption…

If you looked at the paper I cited you would have noted that these were the three areas that were examined in what the authors referred to as Natural Factor Adjusted Warming, and their conclusion was that after these (name removed by moderator)uts were accounted for there was no warming left. These contributors were responsible for all the warming we have seen. The fact that these sources were “unanticipated” says a lot about the assumptions made, especially as……over the time period analyzed, these natural factors have involved historically quite normal solar, volcanic and ENSO activity.

No one anticipated that the deeper ocean would uptake the amount of warming it did (they base the warming stats on surface temps)…

This is a hypothesis, it doesn’t even rise to the level of theory. It is nothing more than speculation.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

But surely the relevant point is this: for all their claims of 95% confidence, shortly after the claim their projections were all shown to be in error.

The 1995 studies were not about projections but based on actual observations up to 1995.

Since then the climate has continued to warm (with yearly ups and downs, but the jagged saw blade pointed upward) and is now significantly warmer than in 1995.

So I don’t know where you find there has been no warming. As mentioned you need to look at a period of more than 20 years, say, at the least a 30 year period would give you a good idea of the trend.

However, such a short timeframe of less than 1000 years in past warming probably would not have shown much warming, and it may not have even reach .05 significance. The only reason such short periods of 30 years or so show significant warming this time around is because we are causing an extremely rapid (in geological timeframe) warming. And that itself is a huge concern, since we don’t know what grave harms we may be facing since there is no analog for such a rapid warming in the past.

 

[Whalljim]

We as Catholics need to get this debate over with.

1. What is more important: Climate Change or Pro-Life issues?
   
   -Sidenote on 4)-
   It is clear that electing Republicans have done little to actually combat Abortion, as
   they have appointed 12 of the last 16 Supreme Court Justices and Under Obama,
   Abortion rates fell every year.

Discuss below?

Okay, as a non teen Catholic Guy, your declaration we have to get this debate over with amused me. It would be helpful and great, I agree. But good luck with that.

I for one believe in and am worried about climate change. There are lots of things we can do, but we have to be careful about being draconian about them.

As to your side note, I actually agree with that on a Federal level - Reps haven’t done a tone to stop abortion. HOWEVER I really wouldn’t give President Obama much support for that. He is a man who is very pro choice, and who abandoned even the ‘safe, legal, and rare’ mantra of President Clinton from what I can see.

Abortions may have gone down during his term, but the reasons may be manifold. One of them, for example, may be communities zoning abortion clinics out of existence. Another may be (guessing, not claiming) lower teen sex rates, etc.

I wouldn’t vote for President Obama due to his stance on abortion, or even in spite of it. Reducing abortions really isn’t on his radar, and eliminating even common sense obstacles to abortion is a thing of his.

 

[Ender]

Since then the climate has continued to warm (with yearly ups and downs, but the jagged saw blade pointed upward) and is now significantly warmer than in 1995.

You make these assertions with no data whatsoever to substantiate them. As it turns out, just yesterday a new paper came out (authored by Benjamin Santer) titled* Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates* which addresses the very obvious discrepancies between what was predicted and what has been experienced.

So I don’t know where you find there has been no warming.

From the data?*In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. *(Hans von Storch, 2013)

As mentioned you need to look at a period of more than 20 years, say, at the least a 30 year period would give you a good idea of the trend.

The scientists involved seem to believe 20 years is a very significant period of time.If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest*, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. *(Ibid)
This is why skeptics are comfortable with their position: it seems the more scientifically supportable of the two.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

But surely the relevant point is this: for all their claims of 95% confidence, shortly after the claim their projections were all shown to be in error.
If you looked at the paper I cited you would have noted that these were the three areas that were examined in what the authors referred to as Natural Factor Adjusted Warming, and their conclusion was that after these (name removed by moderator)uts were accounted for there was no warming left. These contributors were responsible for all the warming we have seen. The fact that these sources were “unanticipated” says a lot about the assumptions made, especially as……over the time period analyzed, these natural factors have involved historically quite normal solar, volcanic and ENSO activity.
This is a hypothesis, it doesn’t even rise to the level of theory. It is nothing more than speculation.

Ender

So you expect climate scientists to be God and know exactly when an el nino or volcanic eruption will happen and whether these will be stronger than usual, beyond knowing that they will happen occasionally.

Just looking at the longer time-frame takes care of all your issues, since it shows warming over a 30 year time frame (choose any start or end point you wish).

I didn’t read the paper you cited, but I’m betting their time frame is less than 30 years – it would have to be if they picked 1998 or even 1995 as their start year. Come back in 2025 and tell me whether or not there has been warming since 1995 caused by the enhanced GH effect. If there has not been any warming, I’ll be jumping for joy with you.

Hint: Start mitigating CC now and maybe the warming will not be significant by 2025 – good idea for all the skeptics…just destroy the evidence thru mitigation.

 

[robertmidwest]

Let me ask, what is wrong with turning out lights not in use, and some 100s of other things we could be doing that really don’t harm us, but could help save lives if we all joined together and did the right things.

It almost sounds like you are saying that we CAN be an environmentalist and not believe in man made global warming.

 

[robertmidwest]

I think it just assumes everyone accepts it as fact, so it is more about our moral responsibility to do something about it. It also mentions the “precautionary principle,” which is akin to “prudence,” in that even if we are not completely convinced CC is happening or human-caused, we still need to work to mitigate it.

It almost sounds like you are saying that Laudato Si’ doesn’t teach man made global warming as a fact.

Lynnvinc, you claim to teach at a collegiate level. When you student are defending a position do you let them cite a source and they say “I assume this is what it mean.” Or do you ask them actually show you portions of the source that support their argument?

I am still waiting on you to actually show me the portions of Ladauto Si’ that show the church is teaching man made global warming as a fact. I am not going to let you get away with “I assume” What else then are assuming?

 

[robertmidwest]

Of course it does. But it is a greater mistake to disregard science because of the nature of the scientific method, that is, to refuse to accept knowledge because it is imperfect and fallible, or to become an anti-intellectual Luddite.

Does the scientific method assume things?

 

[lynnvinc]

It almost sounds like you are saying that Laudato Si’ doesn’t teach man made global warming as a fact…

My reading of it 2 years ago gave me the impression that it simply accepts GW as a scientific fact (since it is indeed a fact), and then goes about church business of explaining how we should deal with this fact.

In addition, since skeptics out of hand have been rejecting whatever JPII and BXVI have said about GW, it presented quite a good explanation of GW so as to instruct those who didn’t know much about it. The US Bishops have also said in 2002 that we must mitigate CC even if we are not sure of the science, prudence requires it of us.

What else to you expect of a Church encyclical? It’s not written by God Himself, tho God did “author” creation, which the scientists study and find out about, and now have found out about CC.

As JPII said Truth (God) cannot deny truth (what the scientists find to be facts).

Maybe it would be a good idea for people to meditate and pray to God to give them enlightenment and the real God’s truth on this issue. I have engaged in such, and it does help. It never hurts to pray.