I guess you should pick something else to do for the environment. - We can’t all be perfect in every way.No, its not a major sacrifice. But its hardly something that is worth the bother for a couple of reasons. One, the store is unlikely to give you a discount so you are in effect throwing your money away, which of course they are happy to take from you. Two, since paper is biodegradable, recycling it makes less sense, since in my case I would then have to buy plastic garbage bags, which take much longer to degrade in a landfill. And a package of plastic bags costs much more than the paper bags that your groceries get bagged in. Plus, I cannot go to the store unless I drive back home to pick up bags first which (for those concerned about pollution) causes unneeded exhaust fumes to be expelled. In addition, one has to maintain the cleanliness of the bags as crud starts to accumulate from spilled goods and things like to grow in them. All for a questionable effect on the environment.
You are the quintessential environmental pundit-I look forward to the day when you come up with something sensible to add to the discussion.
Here are a couple of examples of your unsubstantiated dismissals of those who disagreed with you…When you are finished reading through those, you can come back and contribute. There might be a bit more “meat on the bone” for further discussion.
You logic is flawed for obvious reasons.
While you are quick to say that you are open minded, and ardently defend your yourself against any implication that you are biased…I don’t think you really know much about the topic we are discussing, about the weather, carbon cycles, heat and mass balances or anything which may give you a solid basis for argument.
…you still imply that minority reports are ultimately irrelevant… based on the fallacy known as the “appeal to majority.”I am sure they have valid research that should be reviewed, and we should try and understand what it may mean.
And… then reassert that you are unbiased…But I believe the consolidated bulk of research speaks for itself. There is evidence from a vast number of sources which point towards man made global warming. The results of course are hard to predict. But the shear weight of research from all over the world just can’t be denied.
And then you couple all of that with simple denials and counter-attacks …If you read my posts, I have not discredited any of the scientists that have research which conflicts with the current understanding of global temperatures.
While I’m at it, I should also address the fact that you have repeatedly called me a conspiracy theorist because I have questioned the motivations of high level proponents in the environmental movement. Yet, on another occasion, you questioned the reliability of someone’s source by questioning the motives and allegiances of the author.I have never said that any research should be disregarded. You are just putting words in my mouth. Usually a sign of a weak and disorganised argument.
But… despite discrediting that author based largely on his conservative bias, you were resistant to questioning the motives of liberal authors based on their liberal bias…Here’s some interesting information on the man who wrote that article. Always check the motives of the author!
And speaking of sensibility…I am not how libralistic viewpoint (if that is what one has if one is concerned about global warming) has much to do with weather patterns to be honest.
Then you backtracked on that, but still managed to point a finger at the US for influencing the failure of a treaty we never signed…It was derailed by countries such as Australia and the US who wouldn’t sign the treaty or make an effort.
So with all of that in mind, I am going to go spend some time doing something a little more sensible…No, they are not to blame. But some international solidarity can go a long way
Wow! That must have taken ages to clip out all those posts and organise them.You are the quintessential environmental pundit-
I look forward to the day when you provide substantive responses instead of these thinly veiled efforts to discredit those who disagree with you, and trivialize their positions by using ad hominem attacks or insinuating that they are ignorant or simply beneath your notice.
Let’s review…
Here you assert that familiarity with your “truth” is a prerequisite for participation in this discussion.
Here are a couple of examples of your unsubstantiated dismissals of those who disagreed with you…
While you are quick to say that you are open minded, and ardently defend your yourself against any implication that you are biased…
…you still imply that minority reports are ultimately irrelevant… based on the fallacy known as the “appeal to majority.”
And… then reassert that you are unbiased…
And then you couple all of that with simple denials and counter-attacks …
While I’m at it, I should also address the fact that you have repeatedly called me a conspiracy theorist because I have questioned the motivations of high level proponents in the environmental movement. Yet, on another occasion, you questioned the reliability of someone’s source by questioning the motives and allegiances of the author.
But… despite discrediting that author based largely on his conservative bias, you were resistant to questioning the motives of liberal authors based on their liberal bias…
And speaking of sensibility…
On one occasion, you blame the failure of the Kyoto Treaty on the US and Australia,
Then you backtracked on that, but still managed to point a finger at the US for influencing the failure of a treaty we never signed…
So with all of that in mind, I am going to go spend some time doing something a little more sensible…
:tsktsk:Wow! That must have taken ages to clip out all those posts and organise them.
Thanks for a good summary!
Essentially, you have failed to come up with anything other than “well…those environmentalists have vested interests” and “you are being very arrogant” as your key arguments as to why the **World Meteorological Organization **has is wrong about global warming.
Headline: Leaked report details corruption allegations at U.N. weather agency.
GENEVA: Details about alleged corruption during the 2003 election for the top position at the U.N.'s weather agency have surfaced following the leak of a confidential report from the internal investigation.
(truncated)
In a 65-page summary of her findings, auditor Maria Veiga concluded that former WMO staffer Muhammad Hassan of Sudan skimmed up to US$3 million (€2.35 million) from the agency’s coffers while working in its training department.
Her report said the funds were used to influence the votes of about 50 delegates of WMO member states during the 2003 election of the agency’s new secretary-general.
What’s really interesting is that the WMO hindered the investigation…
(from the same article)
Veiga — a Portuguese national brought in by the WMO to investigate the irregularities — since has been fired by the U.N. agency.
Veiga claimed she was prevented from investigating further by lack of resources, legal assistance and even intimidation.
Her lawyer, Edward Flaherty, said the WMO cut off the investigation of senior officials “because the current secretary-general refused to lift the immunity of the other persons of interest in the investigation.”
And before you claim that this is a conspiracy, follow this link to the press release from the WMO confirming the scandal, and detailing their efforts to “clean up” the agency…Lifting diplomatic immunity — which so far has occurred only for Hassan — is a precondition for a criminal investigation of U.N. staff members.
And here are a few examples of politicians and bureaucrats tampering with the IPCC reports by exaggerating data to advance their political policies…
- INTRODUCTION
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies?
Yes, Certainly! Let me explain: While reviewing the IPCC WGII (Working Group
II) Chapter “Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed
systems” (Chpt.1, WGII IPCC, 2007) as an external reviewer, I felt time and time
again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted adverse impact of
GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible beneficial
impacts. The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse
impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these
projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many
instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible
beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing
observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which
support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which
did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change. Such cherrypicking
of observed climate change to bolster claims of human-caused GW and
climate change is disingenuous and does not help understand the real cause of how and
why the earth’s climate has changed in historical and geological times.
source icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf
source: old.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071205.!15My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world’s poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.
The report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. ***The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10. *** (emphasis added)
The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.
**At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Lol! But wouldn’t the bold letters drain more electricity? :doh2:(I wrote that in green to make this post more environmentally friendly)
What’s a non-renewable resource? Some scientists in Europe and the US believe that oil is continually being produced under the pressure of the earth’s crust. As a Catholic I think we should use the God given gift of the renewable resource, oil.Hi everyone, I was just wondering what the difference is between caring for the environment and going too far. For example, should Catholics be concerned about using nonrenewable resources, even if global warming is false?
Well, of course it’s being constantly produced naturally. But the rate at which we use it is much greater. I was just worrying that it might be all used up before we have another reliable source of energy. Then again, maybe I should give humans more credit?What’s a non-renewable resource? Some scientists in Europe and the US believe that oil is continually being produced under the pressure of the earth’s crust. As a Catholic I think we should use the God given gift of the renewable resource, oil.
I haven’t seen the rate differential numbers. Perhaps God only knows the production rate, but necessity will push invention. Unfortunately the necessity here is artificial and due to the few wanting the power to control the masses but non-the-less it will bring about new ideas if we are given the freedom to do it.Well, of course it’s being constantly produced naturally. But the rate at which we use it is much greater. I was just worrying that it might be all used up before we have another reliable source of energy. Then again, maybe I should give humans more credit?
Ok, so that was a long post which no doubt took you some time to put together.:tsktsk:
Well, since you’re unwilling to address the potential for any UN officials involved in the global warming movement to be be influenced by money or power, I’m going to go ahead and do it for you…
Here’s an example of how WMO funds were used to bribe about 50 officials from the WMO in order to buy votes for the secretary general of the WMO.
What’s really interesting is that the WMO hindered the investigation…
And before you claim that this is a conspiracy, follow this link to the press release from the WMO confirming the scandal, and detailing their efforts to “clean up” the agency…
wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_778_en.html
Regarding my disagreements with the WMO data…
here is an article from an IPCC external reviewer about the political bias in the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (the global warming department of the WMO) which results in the IPCC’s tendency to ignore data that doesn’t support global warming,
And here are a few examples of politicians and bureaucrats tampering with the IPCC reports by exaggerating data to advance their political policies…
Incidentally, the article was written by one of the contributors to the 2007 IPCC report-he shared the Nobel Peace Price with Al Gore…
I’ll post his concluding paragraph first…
source: old.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071205.!15
and here are a few examples from that same article of the actual tampering and exaggeration done by the UN…
**
So, in response to the original question posed by the OP- I would consider
and would conclude that the responsible thing for Catholics is to strive to have well-formed consciences, and to resist attaching moral certainty to anything that is so obfuscated by political and bureaucratic rhetoric.
- that Catholics have an obligation to the truth.
- that the Global Warming debate is mired, on both sides,** by politically and economically spin-
(I wrote that in green to make this post more environmentally friendly)