Do you believe in global warming?

[EasterJoy]

Hasn’t the world been thawing out and warming up since the ice age?

The concern is that the temperature rise of the last 5,000 years, and especially the last 100 years, seems to be markedly different than other temperature fluctuations occurring over the past 800,000 years or so. Past warming events do not seem to have taken place this fast, that is the worry:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

As the farmer said when his mule died: “Gee, he’s never done that before!”

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 1. I don’t know. I suppose it depends on the baseline date you use.
   2. No.
   3. I’m not sure it says anything about him or her. There are very much competing views of this, including among meterologists and other science types. Unfortunately, the whole subject is so politicized, perhaps i should say that if a person doesn’t believe in it, he/she is not very easily led.
   4. Depends on whether he/she is a fanatic and/or pain in the backside about it. Nobody in this country can actually do anything about it anyway, if it’s true.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just for the record, those who contend that the average temperature of the entire planet is rising are not implying that the average temperature is rising everywhere, all of the time. That is a common misconception.

I used to reply to such “Well, it’s cold here in Podunk” responses with – “Global warming has to do with global average temperatures. To find an average you need to add X1 + X2 + X3 +…+ Xn, then divide by n.”

I was being sassy, because I thought the “skeptics” were being mean and sassy, but as it turned out I actually insulted someone who was being sincere. I immediately apologized and we patched up.

After 25 years of my understanding that global warming is a serious threat to life on earth (the poor being hit the hardest), with the science continuing to stream in year after year, decade after decade “it’s worse than we thought,” it’s just near impossible for me to believe that there could be any good and sincere people out there who do not accept the science, at least provisionally enough to be mitigating this problem, as JPII, BXVI, and the U.S. bishops have been instructing us to do for over 20 years. The denial and resistence to do good (and unwillingness to stop bad) is totally flabberghasting.

I used to think human nature was somewhat fallen, from having to deal with mean kids as a kindergardener, mean teens during my teen years, and mean adults into my adulthood, and mainly from knowing how hard it is for me myself to be good, even with all the graces our Graceous Lord provides.

Now it’s like my opinion of human behavior over this global warming issue continues to plummet year after year, decade after decade on into my twilight time, finding “it’s worse than I thought.”

Jesus save us.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just for the record, those who contend that the average temperature of the entire planet is rising are not implying that the average temperature is rising everywhere, all of the time. That is a common misconception.

Another issue is that GW may be causing more strongly negative arctic oscillations, tho the science isn’t as strong on that as AGW in general. That would mean there is a greater chance of a north-south pattern bringing cold weather…like down to my subtropical Rio Grande Valley and killing our subtropical plants and winter gardens.

 

[chimo]

Compare and contrast with the decision to create the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Be very careful, because you’re getting perilously close to a presumption theology…that is, nothing we do can make that much difference, because God doesn’t let our free will have truly catastrophic effects.

After all, what would have kept Judas from thinking like that? If what he did was something in God’s plan, was it OK, or was it as Our Lord put it? “For the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.” Mark 14:21

This is the question that does not get asked often enough. We shouldn’t ask “Can we get away with what we’re doing?” We should be asking “Are we being obedient in the way we are ‘having dominion over’ the earth?”

It depends on where you put the emphasis on. I don’t think like a Westerner since my perspective is more on the Eastern side where the Eastern Church does not put too much emphasis on the judgment on sin as the Western Church often does. Now here I am referring to the lay people and not to the Popes. The Popes of recent memory tend to acknowlege the Eastern Church in their lives and writings for they do not venture to absolutes as so often the people in the Church has done in the past.

Your connection to the tree of knowlege of good and evil to what I said is not necessarily ties in what we are going through today. Indeed there is a lot to do to correct man’s inability to come to know Jesus but this time in our history is actually our turning point for us in our Churches because we as the Laity are called by the Holy Spirit to fill in the shoes of what learned priests, monastics and clergy has always done in the Church. All this transfer of responsibities is timed right fot it is occuring when the world is exercising her powerful influence to the Church. God knowing about this has given the Church and even the world the correctiveness to handle this by allowing the Laity for the first time in the Church’s history to be the front leaders of the Church. This is a new development for the Church so I am hopeful it will mean more courageous men and women to carry the message of the good news in ways never dreamt of. We are heading to the greatest missionary work ever done once the Laity is trained and giving this responsibility to carry this out.

I am not convinced that Judas was an evil man as some report him to be. I questioned this because of the fact that Judas committed suicide after Jesus would not release Himself from the hands of the Pharisees. If Judas wanted the death of Jesus why then did he kill himself? Surely his motives was something else. The motive of Judas may be more that he wanted to trap Jesus into a situation that would have forced Jesus to try to get out of. But instead of trying to get of this situation the Lord Jesus surprised His apostle by going through what the Pharisees were going to do Him and not defending Himself at all. This surprised the apostle and this is when he had these thoughts of despair to enter him. The Lord would not give into the bluff of His apostle and He went to His death without resistence. This scared Judas for we can see this in his attempt to change the minds of these Pharisees by bringing back the money. The Lord warned Judas about this attempt of his and knew of the consequences of it if Judas went ahead with it.

Probably we forget that Judas was a pawn of what the devil was trying to do to Jesus. The devil did not care of any consequences but Jesus did. The deepest mystery of the death of Jesus says St. John Chrysostom was not only to forgive sins but more it was to reveal the mystery of evil by exposing it. The Crucifixation of Jesus was more says this saint to expose the evil one in the open that is the devil. We cannot know for sure know what happened to Judas at the moment of his death. Even the Church has made no formal declaration on this. Who knows if the Mercy of God was available in those last moments for him. Would you refuse to give this Mercy to Judas if you knew it would have been helpful to him? Cannot the Lord think about Judas at his last moment? Does God refuse when it can help the sinner?

The only persons I have to resist is the devil and his influence he has with the people. The Son of God came to wrestle this influence the devil has upon us into His everlasting arms of His Mercy and Compassion. That’s how much love He has for every human being created. We are called to reflect that love. If we are to believe in this love than we must follow it through to the rest of humanity to discover it as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

I used to reply to such “Well, it’s cold here in Podunk” responses with – “Global warming has to do with global average temperatures. To find an average you need to add X1 + X2 + X3 +…+ Xn, then divide by n.”

I was being sassy, because I thought the “skeptics” were being mean and sassy, but as it turned out I actually insulted someone who was being sincere. I immediately apologized and we patched up.

After 25 years of my understanding that global warming is a serious threat to life on earth (the poor being hit the hardest), with the science continuing to stream in year after year, decade after decade “it’s worse than we thought,” it’s just near impossible for me to believe that there could be any good and sincere people out there who do not accept the science, at least provisionally enough to be mitigating this problem, as JPII, BXVI, and the U.S. bishops have been instructing us to do for over 20 years. The denial and resistence to do good (and unwillingness to stop bad) is totally flabberghasting.

I used to think human nature was somewhat fallen, from having to deal with mean kids as a kindergardener, mean teens during my teen years, and mean adults into my adulthood, and mainly from knowing how hard it is for me myself to be good, even with all the graces our Graceous Lord provides.

Now it’s like my opinion of human behavior over this global warming issue continues to plummet year after year, decade after decade on into my twilight time, finding “it’s worse than I thought.”

Jesus save us.

That is the thing. Finding reasons is not a sure thing, and finding blame helps nothing. The question is how the poor will be supported if the weather gets severe.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Of course I believe the earth is getting warmer. It’s almost Spring, after all. And I don’t think it’s due to human causes. Something about the earth rotating closer to the sun during the Spring and Summer times.

 

[EasterJoy]

Of course I believe the earth is getting warmer. It’s almost Spring, after all. And I don’t think it’s due to human causes. Something about the earth rotating closer to the sun during the Spring and Summer times.

The earth made its closest approach to the sun in early January and will be the farthest away in July, but that is not what causes the seasons. The earth has a constant tilt of about 23.5 degrees from vertical, so that for part of the planet’s orbit the northern end is struck by the sun for more hours a day, while on the other half of the orbit, the southern end spends more time in the sunlight. An equinox occurs at each of those two times on the earth’s orbit when the earth’s tilt is perpendicular to the rays of the sun (that is, with neither pole closer to the sun nor farther away) so that both north and south receive equal exposure.

IOW, the earth as a whole–that is, globally rather than locally–typically gets slightly more sun in January, not during northern spring and summer.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Hasn’t the world been thawing out and warming up since the ice age?

No, pretty much since the planet was created. There are warming and cooling patterns throughout history, some caused by events such as a meteor crashing to Earth in central Mexico, and then there are natural cycles that our Earth goes through. They are not driven by humans since we’ve only been here for a relatively short time in geological terms.

But crying “global warming!” turns out to be a great way to take over more power over your life and mine, and also convince some people that the planet would be better off if we all died out. Do you know, there are actually people who are getting themselves sterilized so as not to add more misery and destruction to the planet?? Jesus help us indeed.

:nope::tsktsk::doh2:

 

[lynnvinc]

I think instead of Catholics standing on the sidelines booing environmentalists who have non-Catholics values and ideas, it would be helpful if Catholics engaged with environmental concerns, bringing in a Catholic perspective – such as “it makes no sense to abort children in order to save the earth for the children.”

Environmental harms themselves – local pollution to global warming – have disasterous effects in harming and killing people, including causing birth defects and aborting the unborn. Denying this is sort of like denying that human fetuses are human persons, worthy of their lives being protected.

It really makes no sense at all to be anti-medical/selective-abortion and anti-environment/anti-environmentalism. It sort of comes across as not really being anti-abortion in the first place.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 
   1.Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   
   Belief has nothing to do with it. What verifiable data is available?
   
   Any warming is within historical variations over the millenia.
   Unfortunately there are no reliable data sets over the last couple of centuries to utilize to determine if there is a trend. The Mann ‘hockey diagram’ indicating a recent upswing is based on algorithms which will produce that same graph even when fed random data. Many studies advocating for global warming do not consistently use the same sources of temperature measurements over the decades. For example both Canada and Russia have noted that earlier temperatures utilize data (name removed by moderator)uts from measuring stations across Northern Canada and Siberia, while later measuremetns drop these same stations out. Temperatures in South America are similar with earlier measurements including stations in the Andes while later data are not direct measurements but are extrapolated from stations in the Amazon. Additionally, there has been urban encroachment on many of the reporting stations which have been consistently used. This has raised the question of whether urban heat localization is actually the cause of increases at those sites. Measured variations have been put at 1.5-2 degrees celsius, many studies estimate this cause at lower values- UN study for example assumed this to be less than .5 degrees. Accuracy of reporting stations is also a problem, many stations have been changed to utilize FAA /aviation thermometers whose measuring error is greater than the claimed rise in global temperature. Probably the best data set is the surface temperatures measured from orbiting satellites, those indicate temperatures have been flat for almost the last two decades.
   1. If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   Again, belief has nothing to do with it. Anthropomorphic global warming is based on a theory which makes a prediction about certain human activities and their effect on the environment. The theory’s predictions are not supported by reality, therefore the theory is wrong. If there is any human contribution to global warming it is either by a different mechanism or orders of magnitude less than the theory predicts.
   
   I do believe many humans are responsible for perpetuating and promoting this theory for political and economic reasons. The UN has been advocating for redistribution of resources and used global warming (caused by wealthy nations) as a reason. Their report has proven to be biased, unsupported by the evidence, and grossly misstated world events- for example glacier status in the Himalayas.
   
   Investors stand to make a great deal of money over cap-and-trade schemes. These literally create a tradeable commodity out of nothing, allowing folks to trade an artificially created value. In Europe this system has quite predictably resulted in significant corruption and no reduction in ‘green-house’ gasses.
   1. What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   Depends why they do or don’t believe. For some, it’s a religion- a fanaticism based on man being inherently evil, an entity apart from and opposed to nature which must be eradicated. Others, it’s a cynical exploitation to make money or create a crisis to exploit. Others because it’s fashionable in some circles. Others because they’ve only heard or are only interested in hearing one side. Others sincerely believe that there is a sound scientific basis to the theory, but a quest to determine the magnitude. Could say a lot depending on how deeply they’ve delved into the sources and why they hold the position that they do.
   1. What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   See answer to 3 above. More importantly, why do you connect a persons ability to look at a scientific question/theory and associate it with an emotional state and relationship?

 

[SamH]

The concern is that the temperature rise of the last 5,000 years, and especially the last 100 years, seems to be markedly different than other temperature fluctuations occurring over the past 800,000 years or so. Past warming events do not seem to have taken place this fast, that is the worry:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

As the farmer said when his mule died: “Gee, he’s never done that before!”

Actually the earth has been much warmer in the past and the “fast warming” in the last hundred years is less than one degree - a very slow change in comparison to the warm up in the 1800s with the ending of the mini ice age.

Not to mention the fact that the “warming” appears to have ended 16 years ago.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming–deniers-now.html

 

[TheRealJuliane]

1.Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?

Belief has nothing to do with it. What verifiable data is available?

Any warming is within historical variations over the millenia.
Unfortunately there are no reliable data sets over the last couple of centuries to utilize to determine if there is a trend. The Mann ‘hockey diagram’ indicating a recent upswing is based on algorithms which will produce that same graph even when fed random data. Many studies advocating for global warming do not consistently use the same sources of temperature measurements over the decades. For example both Canada and Russia have noted that earlier temperatures utilize data (name removed by moderator)uts from measuring stations across Northern Canada and Siberia, while later measuremetns drop these same stations out. Temperatures in South America are similar with earlier measurements including stations in the Andes while later data are not direct measurements but are extrapolated from stations in the Amazon. Additionally, there has been urban encroachment on many of the reporting stations which have been consistently used. This has raised the question of whether urban heat localization is actually the cause of increases at those sites. Measured variations have been put at 1.5-2 degrees celsius, many studies estimate this cause at lower values- UN study for example assumed this to be less than .5 degrees. Accuracy of reporting stations is also a problem, many stations have been changed to utilize FAA /aviation thermometers whose measuring error is greater than the claimed rise in global temperature. Probably the best data set is the surface temperatures measured from orbiting satellites, those indicate temperatures have been flat for almost the last two decades.

1. If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?

Again, belief has nothing to do with it. Anthropomorphic global warming is based on a theory which makes a prediction about certain human activities and their effect on the environment. The theory’s predictions are not supported by reality, therefore the theory is wrong. If there is any human contribution to global warming it is either by a different mechanism or orders of magnitude less than the theory predicts.

I do believe many humans are responsible for perpetuating and promoting this theory for political and economic reasons. The UN has been advocating for redistribution of resources and used global warming (caused by wealthy nations) as a reason. Their report has proven to be biased, unsupported by the evidence, and grossly misstated world events- for example glacier status in the Himalayas.

Investors stand to make a great deal of money over cap-and-trade schemes. These literally create a tradeable commodity out of nothing, allowing folks to trade an artificially created value. In Europe this system has quite predictably resulted in significant corruption and no reduction in ‘green-house’ gasses.

1. What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

Depends why they do or don’t believe. For some, it’s a religion- a fanaticism based on man being inherently evil, an entity apart from and opposed to nature which must be eradicated. Others, it’s a cynical exploitation to make money or create a crisis to exploit. Others because it’s fashionable in some circles. Others because they’ve only heard or are only interested in hearing one side. Others sincerely believe that there is a sound scientific basis to the theory, but a quest to determine the magnitude. Could say a lot depending on how deeply they’ve delved into the sources and why they hold the position that they do.

1. What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

See answer to 3 above. More importantly, why do you connect a persons ability to look at a scientific question/theory and associate it with an emotional state and relationship?

Really great response. It bears repeating. You must be a denier. LOL

 

[thomasf]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 1. No.
   2. No.
   3. He has a brain and doesn’t follow the wackjobs that believe in this baseless nonsesne.
   4. See #3.

 

[EasterJoy]

He has a brain and doesn’t follow the wackjobs that believe in this basesless nonsense.

I could marry somebody who wasn’t convinced about global warming, but it would be difficult to endure someone who thought that the National Academy of Science was stacked with brainless wackjobs who don’t know scientific basis when they see it.

As I said at the beginning, it kind of depends on the spouses, and what sorts of things they each find tolerable.

 

[thomasf]

I could marry somebody who wasn’t convinced about global warming, but it would be difficult to endure someone who thought that the National Academy of Science was stacked with brainless wackjobs who don’t know scientific basis when they see it.

As I said at the beginning, it kind of depends on the spouses, and what sorts of things they each find tolerable.

Scientists are not infallible, and most often have an agenda they follow as well. Especially when that agenda entails guaranteeing funding for their research on baseless science.

 

[EasterJoy]

Scientists are not infallible, and most often have an agenda they follow as well. Especially when that agenda entails guaranteeing funding for their research on baseless science.

This is the thinking that put a man on the Moon, I’m sure it is.
(Or do you believe that actually happened?)

 

[SamH]

I could marry somebody who wasn’t convinced about global warming, but it would be difficult to endure someone who thought that the National Academy of Science was stacked with brainless wackjobs who don’t know scientific basis when they see it.
.

But they do know how to apply for funding grant. You can’t get funding to study a problem that you scientifically declare doesn’t exist.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I could marry somebody who wasn’t convinced about global warming, but it would be difficult to endure someone who thought that the National Academy of Science was stacked with brainless wackjobs who don’t know scientific basis when they see it.

As I said at the beginning, it kind of depends on the spouses, and what sorts of things they each find tolerable.

And, I suppose the 35,000 credentialed scientists who signed the statement that global warming, if it exists, is not being caused by humans, are brainless whackjobs?

 

[mary_bobo]

Scientists are not infallible, and most often have an agenda they follow as well. Especially when that agenda entails guaranteeing funding for their research on baseless science.