Do you believe in global warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
Well, yes, cold periods do come and go, but not even the “Little Ice Age” was a lot of fun. Even though it came on slowly, it caused suffering.

If there were to be a rapid change in climate, the impact on agriculture would cause worries that went far beyond science. So no matter who is right, the stakes are very high in both directions. If the correct guesses are made about what the weather will do in the future, about what would be the best solutions for transportation and agriculture and the siting and building of settlements, it would make a big difference.

“If there are floods, then there is water”? Really? That’s like say, “Hey, if we have a Dust Bowl, then we obviously have plenty of dirt! No problem!!”

Honestly, you are being too flippant, and writing as if you don’t understand the problem of water at all. It is a very big deal here in the West, always has been–why would there be “water rights”, if all the necessary water was always there for the asking?–and if it is correct that we have had an unusually wet weather pattern here in the last 150 years, it is only going to get bigger. There are also these things called “aquifers”, and they do not have an endless supply of water in them, either, any more than Texas has an endless supply of oil. It is possible for a previously reliable well to be over-used and pumped dry, and that applies on the grand scale as well as on the small scale.

Or, as the farmer said when his mule died, “Gee, he’s never done that before.” Stupid optimism is not prudent.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FLIPPANT!!!

In North Dakota, the Red River is flooding again:

bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/app-helps-observers-keep-track-of-red-river-flood/article_8692f736-a791-11e2-9332-001a4bcf887a.html

app-helps-observers-keep-track-of-red-river-flood

bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/national-weather-service-gives-red-river-percent-of-setting-record/article_6fb4564a-a7a5-11e2-9df5-001a4bcf887a.html

national-weather-service-gives-red-river-40%percent chance -of-setting-record

If they could divert some of that flood water to a storage facility, it would be a tremendous help during drought periods.

And (editorial) extreme dissatisfaction with the way flooding on the Missouri River is being handled:

bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/re-calibrate-missouri-river-purpose/article_644ad30e-a694-11e2-8f24-001a4bcf887a.html

re-calibrate-missouri-river-purpose
 
Ok I wasn’t going to get involved with this thread beyond my initial post but I do get pretty sick of misconceptions and outright falsehoods being thrown around about this subject. First of all I hear people talking about hoaxes and bringing up emails. I am assuming that they are referring to that whole email drama in the climate science from a few years ago right? The thing is the scientists were cleared. skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm nothing in those emails gave any evidence of this all being some hoax or data being tampered with or anything.

As for the supposed lack of warming. One thing people need to remember is that surface temperatures are not the only thing that matters. Most warming is actually going into the oceans. . skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-is-Accelerating-but-its-Still-Groundhog-Day-at-the-Daily-Mail.html

Also global warming is not just based off models. There is quite a bit of evidence that ties at least some of the cause to humans. This first link is just some general evidence nothing to do with humans specifically. skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

This link skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm goes into more detail about the indicators that point to a human influence. Also note there is a intermediate and advanced section for those that want something more detailed. 🙂

Oh global warming human caused or not does not mean that it will never be cold again.

Anyway I know I did not address everything. I won’t be either not because I can’t but more that I try not to get too involved in these types of threads anymore. It just lead to a lot of frustration for me. But I sincerely hope that people look at those links and explore further. Even take a look at the actual studies if you can they are referenced in the articles.
 
Most of the stuff going on here now really belongs in the Back Fence forum. 🤷
 
Calliso said:
Ok I wasn’t going to get involved with this thread beyond my initial post but I do get pretty sick of misconceptions and outright falsehoods being thrown around about this subject. First of all I hear people talking about hoaxes and bringing up emails. I am assuming that they are referring to that whole email drama in the climate science from a few years ago right? The thing is the scientists were cleared. skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm nothing in those emails gave any evidence of this all being some hoax or data being tampered with or anything.

As for the supposed lack of warming. One thing people need to remember is that surface temperatures are not the only thing that matters. Most warming is actually going into the oceans. . skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-is-Accelerating-but-its-Still-Groundhog-Day-at-the-Daily-Mail.html

Also global warming is not just based off models. There is quite a bit of evidence that ties at least some of the cause to humans. This first link is just some general evidence nothing to do with humans specifically. skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

This link skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm goes into more detail about the indicators that point to a human influence. Also note there is a intermediate and advanced section for those that want something more detailed. 🙂

Oh global warming human caused or not does not mean that it will never be cold again.

Anyway I know I did not address everything. I won’t be either not because I can’t but more that I try not to get too involved in these types of threads anymore. It just lead to a lot of frustration for me. But I sincerely hope that people look at those links and explore further. Even take a look at the actual studies if you can they are referenced in the articles.
Click to expand...
In reality, the scandals are erupting on a daily basis. New scandals every day.

It’s important to keep up with the reading.

Ocean temperatures are very scantily monitored. And there is almost no history on a reliable comprehensive basis. Subsea explorers have been shocked at the extremely high temperatures and gases coming out of volcanic vents in the ocean. Nothing man-made, there. And very little, if any, history. None of this data is usable in any model. Heat transfer from the air to the oceans is very limited.

All of it is computer models. And the lack of transparency. And the continual coverups.

Human connections, if any, are mostly anecdotal, with no science involved. No good data.

The claim is that humans cause an increase in carbon dioxide and that causes the temperature to increase. The PROBLEM is that carbon dioxide has continued to rise and the temperature has been flat for too many years. In other words, the primary theory fails. And all the acolytes are working feverishly to find some fresh new explanations to force the reality to conform to the failed theory.

It’s important to keep up with the reading.
 
AllSeasons said:
  1. What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this question a bit more and whether the person is in the initial stage of developing a relationship, or is very much committed to a person who does not share a concern about global warming.

If it is the initial stage and the person were an outright climate change skeptic or denialist, I for one, would simply end progression of the relationship. Maybe remain friends or acquaintances, but not get married.

If it is the initial stage and the person were amenable to being persuaded to accept climate science and engage in mitigating climate change (or if the relationship had become serious and I was committed to that person), I think I’d make some effort to change that person’s mind.

It sort of seems to me that is perhaps the situation of the original poster. If so, here are some sites that may help debunk the denialist industry “fake-science” and some sites with info on the denialist henchmen themselves. I would also bone up on logical fallacies, since many of the denialist arguments are shot thru with them.

Quite frankly if that doesn’t work, I’d just end the relationship – it’s not worth it to bring extra problems into a marriage. If I were married to such a person, I’d stick it out the best I could, living in the sorrow, offering it up to God as sacrifice for the sake of His Kingdom. I’m against divorce.

Sites that will point to our Catholic calling to support life (re the GW issue), and help debunk denialist industry illogical arguments and fake-science (some of these list particular denialists and/or their particular talking points):
Hope this helps in dealing with a romantic partner who is a climate change skeptic. Prayer also helps.

Of course, it is up to the person and his/her own position on the issue (weak or strong) that will determine whether or not to commit to holy matrimony if the person cannot be convinced that climate change is real and harmful to life, and refuses to mitigate.
 
Are you all familiar with Mount St. Helens?

It is a volcano … basically a suburb of Portland, Oregon … that erupted in 1980.

For a variety of reasons, it may be the most studied volcanic eruption in history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

What does this have to do with global warming?

Well, the theme of “anthropogenic global warming” “man-made” global warming] is that we have to save the planet.

The problem is this: the planet is ONE ginormous volcano: 8000 miles in diameter; pure molten rock … magma … gases … each eruption is different … one even hurls chlorine into the stratosphere at the “ozone hole” … tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/volcanoes.htm ; spinning at 1000 mph at the equator; subject to bombardment by thousands of hits by meteors of all sizes and solar charged particles; bathed in cosmic rays; … the crust constantly moves … an inch a year …

… engineered and designed and built by God at the perfect distance from the sun to promote life. The planet has a protective magnetic field that deflects charged particles to the two magnetic poles. And that magnetic field changes from time to time; in fact, major reconfigurations of the Van Allen radiation belt were just discovered.

Think about Mount St. Helens, the volcanic eruption, and ask if you can “save a volcano”.

When a volcano erupts, it’s like being in the center of the biggest thermonuclear explosion in history. You cannot save a volcano.

Be around it … carefully so you don’t get consumed by it.

Take advantage of it! The volcanic flows of lava deposit minerals that often are extremely useful … which is where the copper comes from that is found in Chile.

Sometimes, you can drill into a volcano and tap into the heat and use it to generate electricity … as is done in Iceland.

Lava leaks out all over the planet … 12 men have walked on the moon and want to go back; yet only two men have ever visited the deepest part of the ocean - 7 miles - and they were so terrified by the high temperatures of the “black smokers” that they only stayed for 20 minutes and had no desire to return.

The deepest mine on our volcano goes down 16,000 feet … 3 miles … and visitors are terrified by the constant volcanic tremors.

You all can read the Wiki article … and add up how much lava was spewed by Mount St. Helens … maybe a billion tons … yet the U.S. Forest Service will arrest you if you so much as pick up a gram of the lava that has been deposited around on the ground for miles.

How much of the “concern” for saving the earth is misdirected earth worship.

A violation of the First Commandment.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Are you all familiar with Mount St. Helens?

It is a volcano … basically a suburb of Portland, Oregon … that erupted in 1980…
Click to expand...
The climate scientists are very aware of volcanoes and that they temporarily cause a cooling effect thru their short-termed aerosol emissions, and that long-long-term they also contribute a bit to warming, but not on a quick enough or big enough scale to compete with the extreme rapidity at which we are causing global warming.

Also “natural disasters,” such as volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc are not completely “natural.” What leads to the very small or very huge death tolls is whether or not people have been prepared properly and have build their structures properly, and whether or not the rescue response is swift, adequate, and effective. We do have a God-given responsibility to see to it that we and our brethren are well-prepared and get adequate response. And America is really bad at both preparation and response – much worse than Chile and Japan, and about at the level of 3rd world countries, like Haiti. We are a risk-taking society that just doesn’t care about human life.

The argument that people die from accidents and being struck by lightening and from lava flows, ergo we should poison their water and cause their argiculturally hospitable climate to change into something quite harmful to life wouldn’t hold up in a Morality 101 class.
 
The whole entire planet is one giant volcano.

It erupts all the time.

But, it erupts in different places.

Nothing man-made about a volcano.

Nothing man-made about a volcanic eruption.

Nothing man-made about continental drift and tectonic plates.

Nothing man-made about magma.

The answer to poverty is economic development.

What you do is you keep your sewer lines separated from your water lines.

Check out the satellite photos of the island of Hispaniola … Haiti on one side; Dominican Republic on the other side.

Haiti uses inefficient wood for fuel … their half of the island is completely denuded of trees.

The Dominican Republic uses efficient oil for fuel … the Dominican half of the island is full of trees.

Shows up with night photography as well … Haiti is darkened; Dominican Republic has lights at night.
 
Keep plugging away, Monte, one of these days you might make a dent in some pretty hard wood yourself!

👍
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Keep plugging away, Monte, one of these days you might make a dent in some pretty hard wood yourself!

👍
Click to expand...
Okay, if Monte is right (and I really hope he is) and I have reduced my GHG emissions by over 60% (and planning much more), saving us $1000s without lowering our living standard, even increasing it a bit, … not only no harm has been done, but great benefit has been done – financially for us, as well as reducing many other environmental and other harms that kill people and cause “natural” abortions.

If OTOH, I, JPII, BXVI, and 1000s of climate scientists are correct and Monte is wrong, then if we fail to mitigate, then we’ll be consigning many poor and future peoples to early death. And I’m not sure about the spiritual repercussions, but a person might find themselves in a lot hotter place than a globally warmed world and for all eternity.

Why risk this, except, of course, we are a risk-taking people who care little for the lives and well-being of others…who aren’t even salient in our self-centered thinking.

No, that doesn’t sound right, since mitigating GW saves money and is in the selfish interest.

I just have to get back to my painful, sorrowful WHY???
 
AllSeasons said:
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.
Click to expand...
    1. Yes, I do. There is enough scientific evidence to support this.
    2. Partly so. Yes, there have been natural warming periods in the past, but the warming happening right now is much more profound. So while I think there are some natural elements to the current situation, humans need to make the switch the green energy.
    3. Both sides have good supporting factors. I’d listen to both people with an open mind.
    4. Love isn’t based on scientific beliefs.
 
aspirant said:
Most of the stuff going on here now really belongs in the Back Fence forum. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, other than addressing the question of how the global warming issue fits into finding a spouse and having a happy marriage, I agree that the rest of the thread belongs elsewhere.
 
lynnvinc said:
Okay, if Monte is right (and I really hope he is) and I have reduced my GHG emissions by over 60% (and planning much more), saving us $1000s without lowering our living standard, even increasing it a bit, … not only no harm has been done, but great benefit has been done – financially for us, as well as reducing many other environmental and other harms that kill people and cause “natural” abortions.

If OTOH, I, JPII, BXVI, and 1000s of climate scientists are correct and Monte is wrong, then if we fail to mitigate, then we’ll be consigning many poor and future peoples to early death. And I’m not sure about the spiritual repercussions, but a person might find themselves in a lot hotter place than a globally warmed world and for all eternity.

Why risk this, except, of course, we are a risk-taking people who care little for the lives and well-being of others…who aren’t even salient in our self-centered thinking.

No, that doesn’t sound right, since mitigating GW saves money and is in the selfish interest.

I just have to get back to my painful, sorrowful WHY???
Click to expand...
Everyone has the right to make his or her own decisions for themselves …

But no one has the right to force the decisions for other people.

Causing the price of electricity to necessarily skyrocket hurts poor people more than anyone else.

Causing the price of automobiles to increase due to unnecessary Corporate Average Fleet Economy CAFE ] standards hurts poor people more than anyone else. [It runs up the price of used cars AND it causes a huge increase in deaths from car crashes due to the increased flimsiness of the car construction in order to get the weight down … and no, increased efficiency is not due to better engines … it’s due to lower weight.]

A one degree increase in temperature is not going to hurt ANYONE … AND more carbon dioxide will increase crop production.

Tens of thousands of scientists say that AGW is bogus.

There aren’t “thousands of climate scientists” who believe in AGW. [There aren’t even thousands of climate scientists … unless someone adds up the people who get some of the magazines and calls them climate scientists.]

IPCC only has about 50 people … they’re the ones who hoaxed up the study summaries … and they aren’t scientists, unless you call people with degrees in political science, scientists.

IPCC supposed used 2500 “reviewers” … and then according to critics proceeded to “adjust” the findings.

And then IPCC had to keep fudging the results because of all the complaints.

AND, that one degree increase??? … it’s spread out over 100 years!

AND, how much carbon dioxide is good for crops? 1200 ppm. Well, what’s it now? 360ppm.

So … exactly, precisely … what is the nature of the environmental emergency?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Everyone has the right to make his or her own decisions for themselves …

But no one has the right to force the decisions for other people.

Causing the price of electricity to necessarily skyrocket hurts poor people more than anyone else.

Causing the price of automobiles to increase due to unnecessary Corporate Average Fleet Economy CAFE ] standards hurts poor people more than anyone else. [It runs up the price of used cars AND it causes a huge increase in deaths from car crashes due to the increased flimsiness of the car construction in order to get the weight down … and no, increased efficiency is not due to better engines … it’s due to lower weight.]

A one degree increase in temperature is not going to hurt ANYONE … AND more carbon dioxide will increase crop production.

Tens of thousands of scientists say that AGW is bogus.

There aren’t “thousands of climate scientists” who believe in AGW. [There aren’t even thousands of climate scientists … unless someone adds up the people who get some of the magazines and calls them climate scientists.]

IPCC only has about 50 people … they’re the ones who hoaxed up the study summaries … and they aren’t scientists, unless you call people with degrees in political science, scientists.

IPCC supposed used 2500 “reviewers” … and then according to critics proceeded to “adjust” the findings.

And then IPCC had to keep fudging the results because of all the complaints.

AND, that one degree increase??? … it’s spread out over 100 years!

AND, how much carbon dioxide is good for crops? 1200 ppm. Well, what’s it now? 360ppm.

So … exactly, precisely … what is the nature of the environmental emergency?
Click to expand...
The way science works is that an effective critique demolishes the hypothesis.

Period.

Instead, we have the AGW true believers working backwards to try to prove a hypothesis that has already failed.

Read more here for the details:

nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html

nipccreport.org/about/about.html

excerpt:

In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC’s positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Everyone has the right to make his or her own decisions for themselves …
Click to expand...
So said Timothy McVeigh, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan, and Osama bin Laden…

And yes, God did actually give them freedom to make their own decisions and do whatever they wanted.

However, we people can be a little more restrictive – like pass laws against murder and against poisoning people’s drinking water, and we can strive to prevent people from killing others by enacting mild laws that help people shift from harmful and killing fuels to less harmful energy, etc.

…or not.

If there is no concern about the current aborting of babies in a society, then there will certainly be no concern about preventing us from killing the poor in very poor countries (out of sight out of mind) and the yet-to-be born in the future (out of sight out of mind). In fact those people will even pay the higher prices for harmful energy just to do more harm and spite society and future generations, so such green energy laws will surely not help in any way.

I guess for their part, those great-great-great-grandchildren who survive long enough can spit on our graves…if those graves are not under water…then it would be spitting in the ocean.

The more I think about it, if one’s romantic interest is a climate change skeptic or denialist, run away from them as fast as you can, bec they surely will not have any care or concern for you, so even trying to convince them of the truth or to err on the side of precaution and prudence will not help.

But don’t forget to pray for them always.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the person who selected a climate change skeptic or denialist for a romantic partner… What does it say about that person? Since everyone has a right to make their own decisions for themselves.
 
lynnvinc said:
The climate scientists are very aware of volcanoes and that they temporarily cause a cooling effect thru their short-termed aerosol emissions, and that long-long-term they also contribute a bit to warming, but not on a quick enough or big enough scale to compete with the extreme rapidity at which we are causing global warming.

Also “natural disasters,” such as volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc are not completely “natural.” What leads to the very small or very huge death tolls is whether or not people have been prepared properly and have build their structures properly, and whether or not the rescue response is swift, adequate, and effective. We do have a God-given responsibility to see to it that we and our brethren are well-prepared and get adequate response. And America is really bad at both preparation and response – much worse than Chile and Japan, and about at the level of 3rd world countries, like Haiti. We are a risk-taking society that just doesn’t care about human life.

The argument that people die from accidents and being struck by lightening and from lava flows, ergo we should poison their water and cause their argiculturally hospitable climate to change into something quite harmful to life wouldn’t hold up in a Morality 101 class.
Click to expand...
Another thing to note about volcanoes is that while they do put out a large amount of co2 per eruption it is nothing compared to what humans put out.

** Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. ** source: hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
 
aspirant said:
Most of the stuff going on here now really belongs in the Back Fence forum. 🤷
Click to expand...
aspirant said:
Here’s a handy link to the Back Fence.
Click to expand...
Solutions! 🙂
  1. Here’s a handy link to write and ask the moderators to move the thread, if (as it appears) you feel strongly that it should be moved to the Back Fence: forumadmin@catholic.com
  2. Every time you post to a thread, the thread is bumped back to the top of the forum, which serves to increase the ‘visibility’ and (indirectly) encourages others to post, thus prolonging the ‘life’ of the thread. Solution #2 involves not continuing to bump the thread, and instead allowing it to ‘die’ from inactivity as it drops down the list of recent threads.
😉
 
aspirant said:
Most of the stuff going on here now really belongs in the Back Fence forum. 🤷
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean? What is the Back Fence for that makes our comments more appropriate there?

I know it gets very tedious discussing why one does or does not accept anthropogenic global warming among us who have strong opinions based extensive research and knowledge – but that IS one of the questions raised, so it is not exactly off-topic.

And it relates to what to think about a romantic partner who does not believe in AGW, what is says about that person, etc., and perhaps what to do – continue or discontinue the relationship.

So those who buy into the climate denialist industry “fake-science” will think it wonderful and certainly okay the romantic partner is a skeptic or denialist; while those following the actual climate science will think it just terrible.

Ultimately it depends on the OP person asking the questions, what he/she accepts or rejects, how strongly, and how important it is.

Just to be sensitive about this – it could be a person is bowled over infatuated by another person who has an opposing view, and they want to know what to do about it. That is a perfectly legitimate question. But the person would have to know enough about the AGW subject to make an informed decision about the romantic interest, esp if it entails a marriage prospect, bec that’s for life.

Maybe he/she is testing the waters to see what others think and say, perhaps hoping the skeptics are right so that having a skeptic romantic interest or spouse will not be so bad. Those following the real climate science, however, cannot let that stand, bec the problem is just going to get worse and worse on the whole over the course of a long many-decade marriage. And if one spouse wants to mitigate, but the other is dead set against it, it could be big trouble for the marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top