Climate Deniers to Pope Francis: 'There Is No Global Warming Crisis'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can we at least get the paper published and read before anyone starts criticizing it? :coffeeread:
 
I think it is important that the Pope hears from both sides. Why shouldn’t those that think the climate change is being hyped by certain groups and why and these people want to present their own facts not have the right to be heard?

No one is saying they are going to criticize the Pope. If anything, they want to criticize the fear mongering to do with climate change.
 
Why doesn’t God provide knowledge to the Pope as to whether or not climate change is man-made?
 
EllisWoods said:
Why doesn’t God provide knowledge to the Pope as to whether or not climate change is man-made?
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t always have the answers to “why,” but the Church is subject to revealed truth. That being said, God’s promise is to guide the Church in truth, with regards to infallibility, is in the areas of faith and morals. So called “climate change” is a matter of science, and thus outside the Church’s doctrinal purview.

So then you might ask, why wouldn’t God just reveal scientific truths anyway, and again, I submit, we don’t always know why. I could speculate that God finds value in man making scientific discoveries and utilizing that knowledge in a way respective of the revealed faith and morals. Ultimately, God want to lead man to Himself.
 
Yes, I will definitely wait until I read the document before opining on this…
 
Is it me or does it appear there is some sort of urgency to get things in order with Pope Francis?

A great Pope but I feel something scary is lurking around the corner for us.
 
I’m a climate change “skeptic”. “Denier” indicates the science is closed, which despite what certain people like to claim, the science is not closed nor should it ever be considered closed.

I’m not a skeptic that the climate changes. Obviously it does. From year to year, hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years.

But I do question how much impact man is having. For one, massive climate change occurred LONG before mankind even showed up on the scene. How many ice ages and thaws were there? What was the climate like when dinosaurs roamed? And there’s evidence of ancient towns that at one point were on dry land that now lie deep under water that indicate that at one point the earth was also much cooler and then warmed up considerably… LONG before man had the population and pollution capable of affecting the climate.

In the 1970’s scientists were so concerned about a cooling trend that they suggested throwing coal dust on the ice caps in order to warm them and melt them. Seriously.

In the 90’s scientists were so concerned about a warming trend that they said by now parts of the coast line would be deep underwater. Which they obviously were wrong about.

And the scientists with the famous hockey stick graph got busted not just once but twice falsifying data to back up their hypothesis which makes me wonder why if it was such a slam dunk they felt like they had to lie.

Additionally, there’s a strong financial incentive for scientists, businesses and government to get on board with the anthropomorphic climate change game. Scientists get their funding from crises. Businesses get to create products to solve crises. And government gets more control and more taxes.

I’m all for science. And I think man affects the earth. In particular, I am concerned about the oceans being destroyed with pollution that is making the ocean acid, killing off the coral reefs and affecting marine populations. I’m concerned about the huge piles of garbage floating around out there. I’m concerned about overfishing. I’m concerned about the fact that radiation from the nuclear meltdown in Japan is being detected in Alaska, British Columbia and the west coast US.

There is another side to all this that the media frequently chooses not to cover, and that is that there are a number of scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.And I think so far the science has proven that the sun - and our relationship to it in terms of current orbit and solar activity- has much more impact on global temperature than does man’s activity.

I’m open to having my mind changed, but would prefer that the scientists would stick to science and not to propaganda, lies or hyperbole.
 
AKDee said:
I’m a climate change “skeptic”. “Denier” indicates the science is closed, which despite what certain people like to claim, the science is not closed nor should it ever be considered closed.

I’m not a skeptic that the climate changes. Obviously it does. From year to year, hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years.

But I do question how much impact man is having. For one, massive climate change occurred LONG before mankind even showed up on the scene. How many ice ages and thaws were there? What was the climate like when dinosaurs roamed? And there’s evidence of ancient towns that at one point were on dry land that now lie deep under water that indicate that at one point the earth was also much cooler and then warmed up considerably… LONG before man had the population and pollution capable of affecting the climate.

In the 1970’s scientists were so concerned about a cooling trend that they suggested throwing coal dust on the ice caps in order to warm them and melt them. Seriously.

In the 90’s scientists were so concerned about a warming trend that they said by now parts of the coast line would be deep underwater. Which they obviously were wrong about.

And the scientists with the famous hockey stick graph got busted not just once but twice falsifying data to back up their hypothesis which makes me wonder why if it was such a slam dunk they felt like they had to lie.

Additionally, there’s a strong financial incentive for scientists, businesses and government to get on board with the anthropomorphic climate change game. Scientists get their funding from crises. Businesses get to create products to solve crises. And government gets more control and more taxes.

I’m all for science. And I think man affects the earth. In particular, I am concerned about the oceans being destroyed with pollution that is making the ocean acid, killing off the coral reefs and affecting marine populations. I’m concerned about the huge piles of garbage floating around out there. I’m concerned about overfishing. I’m concerned about the fact that radiation from the nuclear meltdown in Japan is being detected in Alaska, British Columbia and the west coast US.

There is another side to all this that the media frequently chooses not to cover, and that is that there are a number of scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.And I think so far the science has proven that the sun - and our relationship to it in terms of current orbit and solar activity- has much more impact on global temperature than does man’s activity.

I’m open to having my mind changed, but would prefer that the scientists would stick to science and not to propaganda, lies or hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Well said. This is pretty much where I am. I am not convinced we have irrefutable evidence that man’s activity is causing climate change. But I also feel that it has become impossible to deny that climate change is happening - as it has forever (droughts/ice ages, etc). Certainly reminds you of your fragility.

But we have never had industrialized human activity on such a huge scale on the planet either - so because of that I am all for examining and examining the effects of human activity on the planet. The same way you monitor the breathing and heart of a patient during surgery, right - as the planet goes, so go we. I don’t want it to be partly or all our fault and find out too late to do anything. But I equally really resent the falsifying of data that has occurred with the global warming models (without question) - also the refusal to engage the global warming skeptics in the scientific community whatsoever. That makes me very nervous. It’s a hot mess, no pun intended. :o
 
The Population Control agenda wants us to admit to the cardinal sin: being human. Population Control wants to contravene God’s commandment to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply” because creation is worshipped rather than the Creator. Population Control will only be satisfied when mankind is extinct, irrelevant, or both.
 
AKDee said:
I’m a climate change “skeptic”. “Denier” indicates the science is closed, which despite what certain people like to claim, the science is not closed nor should it ever be considered closed.

I’m not a skeptic that the climate changes. Obviously it does. From year to year, hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years.

But I do question how much impact man is having. For one, massive climate change occurred LONG before mankind even showed up on the scene. How many ice ages and thaws were there? What was the climate like when dinosaurs roamed? And there’s evidence of ancient towns that at one point were on dry land that now lie deep under water that indicate that at one point the earth was also much cooler and then warmed up considerably… LONG before man had the population and pollution capable of affecting the climate.

In the 1970’s scientists were so concerned about a cooling trend that they suggested throwing coal dust on the ice caps in order to warm them and melt them. Seriously.

In the 90’s scientists were so concerned about a warming trend that they said by now parts of the coast line would be deep underwater. Which they obviously were wrong about.

And the scientists with the famous hockey stick graph got busted not just once but twice falsifying data to back up their hypothesis which makes me wonder why if it was such a slam dunk they felt like they had to lie.

Additionally, there’s a strong financial incentive for scientists, businesses and government to get on board with the anthropomorphic climate change game. Scientists get their funding from crises. Businesses get to create products to solve crises. And government gets more control and more taxes.

I’m all for science. And I think man affects the earth. In particular, I am concerned about the oceans being destroyed with pollution that is making the ocean acid, killing off the coral reefs and affecting marine populations. I’m concerned about the huge piles of garbage floating around out there. I’m concerned about overfishing. I’m concerned about the fact that radiation from the nuclear meltdown in Japan is being detected in Alaska, British Columbia and the west coast US.

There is another side to all this that the media frequently chooses not to cover, and that is that there are a number of scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.And I think so far the science has proven that the sun - and our relationship to it in terms of current orbit and solar activity- has much more impact on global temperature than does man’s activity.

I’m open to having my mind changed, but would prefer that the scientists would stick to science and not to propaganda, lies or hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Until the members of the IPCC provide a clean attribution argument, employ objective validation and verification methods for the climate models, and understand the uncertainties in measurements, models, reconstructions, and planetary energy budget, I will remain very skeptical and watchful.
 
7_Sorrows said:
I think it is important that the Pope hears from both sides. Why shouldn’t those that think the climate change is being hyped by certain groups and why and these people want to present their own facts not have the right to be heard?

No one is saying they are going to criticize the Pope. If anything, they want to criticize the fear mongering to do with climate change.
Click to expand...
👍

Since the essentials of this issue lies out of the expertise of the Holy Father, he naturally will lean on others to supply factual information. We can pray the voices of those with the “agenda” will be balanced by those without.
 
agnes_therese said:
There seem to be quite a few people who think that just wouldn’t be any fun.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen anyone criticize the paper. I have seen a number of people, including myself, opining about what they think about the topic. This is a discussion forum, no?
 
Elizium23 said:
The Population Control agenda wants us to admit to the cardinal sin: being human. Population Control wants to contravene God’s commandment to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply” because creation is worshipped rather than the Creator. Population Control will only be satisfied when mankind is extinct, irrelevant, or both.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this isn’t why the Pope finds it necessary to be involved. To refute the population control crowd.
 
JimG said:
The Vatican’s dangerous embrace of climate change theory.
Click to expand...
Excellent point right here:
If the Catholic Church endorses the climate-change hypothesis, and later developments prove that hypothesis wrong, what will be the net result? The result, I fear, will be skepticism: not about climate issues, but about the authority of the Catholic Church. Critics of Catholicism will say that the Vatican had learned nothing from the Galileo affair, and had again exerted its moral authority improperly in a scientific debate.
Click to expand...
Especially in todays age when the authority of the Church, even in moral matters is seriously mocked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top