Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TeenCatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IWantGod said:
Okay lets put aside climate change. What about peoples heath in regards to pollution?
Click to expand...
In the first world, we burn carbon fuels with nominal pollution. That technology is also available to 3rd world for their power plants.
 
IWantGod said:
Okay lets put aside climate change. What about peoples heath in regards to pollution?
Click to expand...
It is certainly reasonable to oppose pollution and to agitate for a clean environment, but that is a completely different argument than calling for an end to CO2 emissions because of a fear of global warming, and it really isn’t legitimate to argue one point under the guise of addressing the other.

Ender
 
Ender said:
It is certainly reasonable to oppose pollution and to agitate for a clean environment, but that is a completely different argument than calling for an end to CO2 emissions because of a fear of global warming, and it really isn’t legitimate to argue one point under the guise of addressing the other.

Ender
Click to expand...
Are you saying that CO2 emissions is consistent with a healthy and clean environment?

I can’t help but think that the only reason putting end to co2 emissions is such a big problem is because its bad for businesses, and i can see how people would ignore legitimate data that would undermine business.
 
Ender said:
It is certainly reasonable to oppose pollution and to agitate for a clean environment, but that is a completely different argument than calling for an end to CO2 emissions because of a fear of global warming, and it really isn’t legitimate to argue one point under the guise of addressing the other.

Ender
Click to expand...
Amen brother Ender.
 
IWantGod said:
Are you saying that CO2 emissions is consistent with a healthy and clean environment?

I can’t help but think that the only reason putting end to co2 emissions is such a big problem is because its bad for businesses, and i can see how people would ignore legitimate data that would undermine business.
Click to expand...
CO2 is an odorless and colorless trace gas in the atmosphere that is completely natural and essential for life on earth. More CO2 in the atmosphere means a greener and fruitful earth.

Putting an end to CO2 will mean the death of millions upon millions of people because it require the complete suppression of fossil fuels, without which electricity will become more expensive. I once read an article titled “How to Kill a Billion People.” Think what damage you could do to the world’s food supply if you suppressed the production fossil fuels from which we get gasoline, diesel fuel, and anhydrous ammonia and other fertilizers.
 
IWantGod said:
Are you saying that CO2 emissions is consistent with a healthy and clean environment?
Click to expand...
Yes.
I can’t help but think that the only reason putting end to co2 emissions is such a big problem is because its bad for businesses, and i can see how people would ignore legitimate data that would undermine business.
Click to expand...
If you believe there is a simple way of eliminating CO2 emissions then you really don’t understand what is involved. Germany and Spain both invested heavily in renewable energy sources, and both were forced to back off because of the significant costs involved. Not inconsequentially, we could reduce our emissions to zero and it would have just that effect on the climate: zero.

Ender
 
Hi Teen Catholic,

Our Pope is tragically wrong about climate change. His advisors are giving him bad advice, although I believe it is advice he predisposed to hear. That his pontifical academy has gone off the rails is proved by the people they have invited to come to address their sessions: Paul Ehrlich, the abominable arch population controller and most discredited scientist in the world; Naomi Klein, red diaper baby socialist and professed enemy of many things the Church stands for; Han Joachim Schellenhuber, … I could go on and on. The Academy’s let the wolves in the sheepfold, and at the same time excluded climate realists. Why? [or as Trump would tweet: Sad!]

Establishment climate science has become hopelessly corrupted by money, politics, and the UN. The conclusions of the IPCC, the alleged premiere expert on climate change, cannot be trusted. It has proven itself to be a corrupt political–not a scientific–organization whose very charter requires it to find that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change.

And besides, the global warming hypothesis has been falsified in many, many ways.

Why are you such a gung ho global warming proponent?
 
Rau said:
These papers are ignored in the stats exactly because they don’t address the issue. If an astronomy paper fails to mention that gravity draws planets to their sun, do we conclude anything at all about the astronomer’s belief in the action of gravity on planets? No. We certainly don’t tag that astronomer as a non-believer! And we are not interested in the opinions of scientists (including must meteorologists) at large but of scientists in the relevant specialty - “climate scientists”.

So the scientists are not conspiring and they are not dishonest. They just failed to notice that we all THINK the vast majority of climate scientists say the same thing.🤷 But if they realized, they’d set the record straight. 🤷
Click to expand...
I have read the 2013 Cook study and examined their results. Cook et al are very dishonest. They would have us believe that 97% of the studies they examined (which express an opinion) say that human co2 emissions are causing most of the observed global warming. But when actually look at their data and count them, less than 2% express that opinion. Plain dishonesty. Can’t believe a word they say.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
I have read the 2013 Cook study and examined their results. Cook et al are very dishonest. They would have us believe that 97% of the studies they examined (which express an opinion) say that human co2 emissions are causing most of the observed global warming. But when actually look at their data and count them, less than 2% express that opinion. Plain dishonesty. Can’t believe a word they say.
Click to expand...
It always comes down to this. The Climate Scientists that speak on the subject are dishonest, and (apparently) the honest ones have nothing to say, or political leaders just choose to ignore them. :rolleyes:

PS: Cook is not a climate scientist. But apparently he’s dishonest too. :rolleyes:
 
Rau said:
It always comes down to this. The Climate Scientists that speak on the subject are dishonest, and (apparently) the honest ones have nothing to say, or political leaders just choose to ignore them. :rolleyes:

PS: Cook is not a climate scientist. But apparently he’s dishonest too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As you pointed out, Cook was not a trained climate scientist in any fashion when he did his research. He was a grad student studying psychology. This lack of training helps explain his gross errors in methodology. The criticism is that he misrepresented what the scientists claimed in their research, not that the scientists were dishonest.

The criticism against Al Gore’s movie was that he also misrepresented the science, not that the scientists were dishonest.

Only a few actual climate scientists can be accused of outright dishonesty, of pushing a political agenda over communicating actual science. As example, it’s proven that Mann manufactured his hockey stick graph.

When one bothers to investigate alarmist articles on a new study, what you usually find is:
  • a researcher conducted a “what if” analysis in their field of expertise (plant, animal, fish, etc). They took as an assumption that the worst case climate scenario was true and projected the impact into their field of expertise. This is legitimate research provided their assumptions are clearly stated and qualified.
  • their research is a scenario analysis, it is not research validation of the worst case climate model projections. In fact most of these researchers have no training in climate science per se. At most, they are guilty of following the research money, of doing what get’s funded.
  • The dishonesty usually comes from the media who push the research outcomes as fact, without discussing the assumed (name removed by moderator)uts and their likelihood. The researchers don’t write these articles.
 
Rau said:
It always comes down to this. The Climate Scientists that speak on the subject are dishonest, and (apparently) the honest ones have nothing to say, or political leaders just choose to ignore them. :rolleyes:

PS: Cook is not a climate scientist. But apparently he’s dishonest too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hi Rau,

Cook et al are dishonest because they knowingly misrepresented their results. In no possible world can 97% equal 2%. Check out this video for all the gory details: youtube.com/watch?v=lngHJmdDx-w
 
Theo520 said:
As you pointed out, Cook was not a trained climate scientist in any fashion when he did his research. He was a grad student studying psychology. This lack of training helps explain his gross errors in methodology. The criticism is that he misrepresented what the scientists claimed in their research, not that the scientists were dishonest.
Click to expand...
Ummm…no. The video from ferdgoodfellow does in fact explicitly condemn the climate scientists who allowed cook to publish, and by implication there must be a silent majority allowing the misleading to go on. And then at the end the video it concurs that the overwhelming position of the key scientific bodies including NASA, NOAA and IPCC is that man made pollution is the main driver of global warming. And it says that the proper attitude towards “such consensus is (to say) ‘so what’”.

That video makes its point by asserting that while 97% of the relevant papers concur that pollution adds to climate change almost all did not quantify the extent. That suggests much work will be ongoing to quantify the extent - we can only hope that they discover there was nothing to worry about.
 
Try responding to the points I made, I have no knowledge of the video you are referencing. Though I mentioned cook’s lack of research training, my subsequent comments were about how the media reports on climate research in general, not Cook’s ‘research’
Rau said:
Ummm…no. The video from ferdgoodfellow does in fact explicitly condemn the climate scientists who allowed cook to publish, and by implication there must be a silent majority allowing the misleading to go on. And then at the end the video it concurs that the overwhelming position of the key scientific bodies including NASA, NOAA and IPCC is that man made pollution is the main driver of global warming. And it says that the proper attitude towards “such consensus is (to say) ‘so what’”.

That video makes its point by asserting that while 97% of the relevant papers concur that pollution adds to climate change almost all did not quantify the extent. That suggests much work will be ongoing to quantify the extent - we can only hope that they discover there was nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
 
I just watched the link from ferdgoodfellow and I must question whether you did watch it. The video condemns the mainstream consensus, not climate scientists.
  • It critiques an ad funded by an action group, and comments from Obama etal
  • It critiques a researcher (not climate) who wants to depopulate Nebraska
  • It critiques Al Gore and the ideological nature of activist arguments
  • It critiques the concept of ‘consensus science’ since it’s not part of science
If you were to stretch yourself and listen to the material put out by the Heritage Foundation, a known ‘denialist’ group, you would discover they affirm the basic principles of AGW:
  • CO2 is a GHG
  • Man is a key driver in rising CO2 levels
  • ergo, man is contributing to warming the environment
Where they disagree with the mainstream consensus is the contribution of nature vs man in the warming, not whether man is contributing.
Rau said:
Ummm…no. The video from ferdgoodfellow does in fact explicitly condemn the climate scientists who allowed cook to publish, and by implication there must be a silent majority allowing the misleading to go on. And then at the end the video it concurs that the overwhelming position of the key scientific bodies including NASA, NOAA and IPCC is that man made pollution is the main driver of global warming. And it says that the proper attitude towards “such consensus is (to say) ‘so what’”.

That video makes its point by asserting that while 97% of the relevant papers concur that pollution adds to climate change almost all did not quantify the extent. That suggests much work will be ongoing to quantify the extent - we can only hope that they discover there was nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
 
Rau said:
It always comes down to this. The Climate Scientists that speak on the subject are dishonest, and (apparently) the honest ones have nothing to say, or political leaders just choose to ignore them. :rolleyes:

PS: Cook is not a climate scientist. But apparently he’s dishonest too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In the category of “Even paranoids have enemies”, sometimes it is appropriate to call a climate warrior dishonest, because sometimes they really are. I would put Cook’s “study” in that category, along with much that was uncovered by the emails leaked about the activities at the CRU. None of this rubs off on others - there is no sweeping accusation that applies generically - but the misbehavior of individuals is certainly a valid issue.

Ender
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
I think you watched part one of CO2 on trial.

Part 5 deals with Cook et al: youtube.com/watch?v=lngHJmdDx-w
Click to expand...
Cooks is a climate activist, or alarmist. Not a scientist in any sense of the word. His research failed to adhere to basic requirements for methodology and execution.

Even if he was a scientist, attacking his research with cause is not the same as attacking scientists as a group.

Also, in reference to Rau’s earlier comment, the climate scientists didn’t “allow” Cook to review and categorize their published abstracts. They had absolutely no part in Cooks ‘research’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top