There is no scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Climate change propagandists have been caught again and again using fake data or deceptive methodology. Even the UN’s IPCC, which is often erroneously cited as an independent scientific body by climate change propagandists, was caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating (
propagandamatrix.com/articles/november2008/111708_ipcc_caught.htm).
The IPCC is the gold standard of climate science – it is “run” by 100s of top scientists around the world in their free time and for free. I know some of them. They are honest, hard-working people doing the best they can.
I know about the 3 mistakes (out of many 1000s of pages) in the WGII impact chapters,
which were discovered by the scientists in WGI (the science). In fact I found the glacier one in WGII Chapt. 10 Asia on p. 493 soon after the report was out while working on an article about food rights and climate change, and suspected it was a mistake before a glaciologist finally found it (bec I knew enough about the science), and did NOT include that in my paper – so NO HARM DONE.
The real story to come out of “glaciergate” is that NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE HARMS TO ASIANS FROM CC to have bothered to have read about them over the 18 months it took to discover the error. That is the real story – not that the glaciers will all be melted in a few hundred years instead of by the mistake date of 2035, driving 40% of India & China into extreme famine if we fail to mitigate.
However, I’ve found in general the IPCC reports to underestimate the problem due to scientific reticence or conservativism. Scientists strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims – they can’t afford to risk their reputations by being the boy who called wolf. (And we saw what happened to that hapless Indian scientist who worked on Chap. 10, a non-glaciologist, who made that 2035 mistake; he got tarred, feathered, and pilloried.)
We laypersons OTOH you’d think would be interested in avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address a true and dangerous problem (assuming we love our children); we cannot afford to be the villagers who got eaten by the wolf. So I’m always honed in on the high end predictions, and busy mitigating climate change to the best of my ability (which BTW has saved us $1000s over the past 22 years). If it turns out to be false (or we mitigate it so well, we destroy the evidence of it
), then I’m ahead, laughing all the way to the bank, while many of those who failed to mitigate are left holding a bag of debts.
I think it is wrong to slander honest, hard-working scientists, just because we don’t like their message. No one likes it. I don’t like. But instead of putting our heads in the tar sands, we should be rolling up our sleeves and doing God’s will in striving to reduce harm to his creation (including to us). I propose the Little Way of Environmental Healing – re doing the little things in daily life (and big things when feasible) and offering it up to God.
Gasland is propaganda for the big lie.
Well, all I have to say is please see the documentary and tell me with a straight face that all those regular folks Josh Fox interviewed were lying thru their teeth, and that perhaps he was making it up ? just to extort more money for fracking on his land (that’s how he started getting into the topic…when they offered him $100,000 to frack on his land). You have to see the whole thing to really get the best picture, but here are a few excerpts:
youtube.com/watch?v=j2Nc-kxWfmc
Liberals don’t really care about pollution.
I’ve always been an environmentalist, even in the 20 years I was a Republican. I wish people would get off the conservative/liberal red/blue frame and go for a little green. Many of my environmental buddies have been Catholic & Republican. And JPII & BXVI (arguably 2 liberals) have expressed genuine concern about enviornmental issues, including CC.
I care about life, and since life depends on a healthy environment – the environment being the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the chemicals that permeate our skin, and the resources with which be build our homes and products (and not just the polar bears and rainforests as some think (i.e. wild/useless species in wild/useless places) – I do care much about the environment. God gave it to us not to be a wasteland, but to be lived in (Is 45:18).
Perhaps instead of standing on the sidelines criticizing the particular types of environmentalists we hate the most, we should be actively involved in living a type of environmentalism that is within Church teachings. Then we good people would dominate the movement, not the reprehensible people.
There are technologies that would allow the clean extraction and use of fossil fuels.
Agreed, but the 2005 Energy Policy Act excluded underground injection of fracking fluids (which contain among the 530 ingredients, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, formalehyde, and glycol ethers (which eat thru reverse osmosis filter membranes, rendering them useless)) from the regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and so on. It is a wild free for all. There are perhaps safer technologies, but will they be used when money trumps lives and there’s no penalty for grossly harming people (and their farms) by polluting their water & air bec that’s the cheaper thing to do? I think not.
There are admittedly 2 evils from which we have to choose when we vote, and we’re expected to vote for the lesser of them (that’s a no-brainer). But we can also strive to put up candidates who are not evil in some areas, but good in all areas. There have been some politicians like that, but they tend to be run out of office.
The option I was championing in this thread was striving to make the candidates we do have not so evil – getting Romney/Ryan to come round on environmental issues that threaten life, and getting Obama to come round on abortion and environmental issues (bec he’s not so good on the environment either).
rinciples-of-formal-and-material-cooperation&Itemid=171