Global Warming: Speech by Al Gore filled with vulgarity

[Monte_RCMS]

nypost.com/p/news/national/gore_goes_nuts_7fvIs8eiyGOtdOhYZUEwiI

This is a news story, but is presented in an opinion column.

Looking to find a complete transcript and/or a recording of the speech, which I actually heard on the radio.

More here:

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=632530

[Did they really Photo-shop the polar bear on the ice floe?]

bigjournalism.com/acary/2010/03/13/albert-arnold-gore-jr-is-back-and-hes-got-global-warming-with-him-the-msm-too/

americanparchment.com/library/climate_scandals.html

 

[Hokomai]

People must be sensitive in your part of the world.

By the way why do you ask people from all over the earth on these forums to

Fly your American flag so everyone can see it!

?

 

[kimmielittle]

People must be sensitive in your part of the world.

Hmmm are you saying vulgarity including taking God’s name in vain adds to Mr Gores credibility?

 

[Hokomai]

Hmmm are you saying vulgarity including taking God’s name in vain adds to Mr Gores credibility?

No. If I meant that I would have said it. I think it makes sense to argue the ‘what’ not the ‘how’. And how do you know he had the God you believe in in mind? The main reason for my post was the flag waving.

 

[kimmielittle]

And how do you know he had the God you believe in in mind? The main reason for my post was the flag waving.

Welll.llll…let’s see.

Mr Gore went to St. Alban’s, elite convent-school for many years.
stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=2206

algoresupportcenter.com/aboutal.html

Mr Gore and His wife got married at The Washington National Cathedral.
nationalcathedral.org/about/

Mr Gore studied Theology at Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee, vanderbilt.edu/divinity/#

Mr Gores daughter was married by Ronald H. Haines, the former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/03/former_dc_bishop_dies_in_lanca.html

I would say it’s a safe bet that Mr Gore knows exactly who he’s profaning…
BUT THEN AGAIN: Maybe he was cussing gaia for not living up to his predictions?

PS The flag waving is because we USA just lost 30 soldiers In a helicopter crash. Seeing how CAF is based in USA as is the OP…

 

[mary_bobo]

Al Gore is a very pathetic figure. He was raised from childlhood to be President of the United States and he did not make it. His father was an absolutely awful senator, who came home and said one things and went to Washington and did something entirely different. Sadly, I think Junior has gone off the deep end.

 

[davidmlamb]

Hmmm are you saying vulgarity including taking God’s name in vain adds to Mr Gores credibility?

How does Al Gore’s vulgarity used in a speech about global warming discredit his argument? Are you saying that any vulgarity used in speech negates the truth of that speech? What if I were to say D&*mit! Jesus died for your sins…" Does the vulgarity negate the fact of the statement?

Peace,
David

 

[kimmielittle]

How does Al Gore’s vulgarity used in a speech about global warming discredit his argument? Are you saying that any vulgarity used in speech negates the truth of that speech? What if I were to say D&*mit! Jesus died for your sins…" Does the vulgarity negate the fact of the statement?

Peace,
David

Nice try…almost.

HERE IS WHAT I said:

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
Hmmm are you saying vulgarity including taking God’s name in vain** adds to Mr Gores credibility?**

I’ve bolded, for your convenience, who’s credibility I was referring to…

A closer look… would logically dictate it was in reference to Mr Gore’s PERSONAL credibility.

As to Mr Gore’s AGW hypothesis…can you please point to one claim made by him or AGW… that proves AGW, please?

Until observational evidence exists that shows correlation and causation…I’m afraid AGW is an unproven hypothesis that LIVES within Models…whereas Natural Climatic Changes are a reality.

 

[davidmlamb]

Nice try…almost.HERE IS WHAT I said:
I’ve bolded, for your convenience, who’s credibility I was referring to… A closer look… would logically dictate it was in reference to Mr Gore’s PERSONAL credibility.

Okay good, now that the smoke and mirrors have been removed we can clearly see that Mr Gore’s vulgarity is irrelevant to the case of Global Warming. We can now move on to the facts of the case.

:As to Mr Gore’s AGW hypothesis…can you please point to one claim made by him or AGW… that proves AGW, please?Until observational evidence exists that shows correlation and causation…I’m afraid AGW is an unproven hypothesis that LIVES within Models…whereas Natural Climatic Changes are a reality.

I believe your argument is willed ignorance. The evidence that global warming is due to human consumption of natural resources is overwhelming. With the exception of a few scientists who have been paid by big business corporation to say what the right wants them to hear, the vast majority of the world scientists agree with the primary thesis of Mr Gore’s case for global warming. I really do not need to make a long scientific argument but instead would encourage our reading audience to research it. Google.com is a good start. Then people can examine the facts in evidence minus the rhetoric.

The bible tells us in the book of Revelation that man will destroy the environment and God will judge them for it. Yes the environment can change by natural causes but there is little evidence that this is the major cause. Well to be fair I should say natural causes has a minor effect while manmade causes has a major effect. The rapid melting of the Polar Icecaps can only happen by an obvious cause and not a subtle one. For instance, if we had massive amounts of volcanoes simultaneously erupting all over the world for a period of 10 years then we could conclude this is the cause of global warming
.
If the Earth was struck by a very large space object such as a comet or an asteroid, then we can say this is the cause. But none of this is happening. What is happening however is that billions (if not trillions) of tons of carcinogens since the Industrial Revolution has caused a green house effect. CO and CO2 molecules are reaching a saturation point where photosynthesis cannot properly compensate changing the equilibrium of CO2 (name removed by moderator)ut to O2 output. Gravity holds those molecules into the air and they bond with air molecules. The excess carbon molecules linger for decades and hold in heat while at the same time absorbs heat from the sun and raises the temperature of the earth at the polar icecaps. The ice absorbs the additional heat causing an accelerated melting of the polar icecaps. This in return causes massive climate change all over the world which is manifested in more severe winters, summers, and severe or uncharacteristic weather patterns.This is known as a global climate shift.

The saturation of carcinogens in the atmosphere is aided by the human consumption of the rain forests and other green areas which contributed to the photosynthesis affect. This in turn changes the equilibrium of the photosynthesis affect which gave us the climate humans have adapted to.

We are stewards of the earth and we are called to good stewardship of the earth. But good environmental stewardship has been trumped by the love of money. Which the bible say’s is the root of ALL EVIL. The USCCB has this to say;

We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of God’s creation.
Care for the earth is a duty of our faith and a sign of our concern for all people. We
should strive to live simply to meet the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We have a moral
obligation to protect the planet on which we live—to respect God’s creation and
to ensure a safe and hospitable environment for human beings, especially children
at their most vulnerable stages of development. As stewards called by God to share
the responsibility for the future of the earth, we should work for a world in which
people respect and protect all of creation and seek to live simply in harmony with it
for the sake of future generations. --.Faithful Citizenship Ch 1 section 54

Willed ignorance to the facts surrounding the cause and effect of global warming and climate change is a formal cooperation with evil because it is a direct threat to human life and demonstrates a great lack of respect for human dignity…

In the Service of Christ and His Church,

David Lamb

 

[kimmielittle]

Okay good, now that the smoke and mirrors have been removed we can clearly see that Mr Gore’s vulgarity is irrelevant to the case of Global Warming. We can now move on to the facts of the case

.

I believe your argument is willed ignorance. The evidence that global warming is due to human consumption of natural resources is overwhelming.]quote]Actually wrong. Willed ignorance would be to ignore the evidence.

I asked you to provide observational evidence that AGW is something more than an unproven hypothesis. You know, direct correlation and causation supported by actual observational evidence that confirms AGW does more than only LIVE within models.

40 plus years of modeling the hypothesis of AGW has failed to produce this observational evidence.

With the exception of a few scientists who have been paid by big business corporation to say what the right wants them to hear,

Who do you think paid for this attempted smear at big business? I have provided evidence many times here on CAF threads that it was Mr Soros organizations.

AND which they even admit to doing. Here is one.

soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

Mr Soros in one year spent $1,060.000 On media hype NOT including $730,000 To “Politicize Science” what Soros org actually called it ]. On AGW for Mr James Hansen…

I’m happy you wish to get beyond the smoke and mirrors - here above… is a start for you.

the vast majority of the world scientists agree with the primary thesis of Mr Gore’s case for global warming.

A repost of mine:

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
The basic hypothesis isn’t in question, at this time.

It is the matter of “values” assigned to “sensitivities” Feedbacks and Forcings ]. Which AGW’ers arbitrarily assign INTO the basic hypothesis .

IPCC issues them " sensitivity " ] values of from 3.5 to as high as 5.7. These high values are needed for the hypothesis to show a desired AGW ] warming. Without these sensitivities valued at these rates…we show no / very low… AGW gain.

AGW’ers need these sensitivities to promote their 1C rise. Who’s going to fund a 1/2 C or 1/4C ( or even less ) rise? ].

To get those values of sensitivities the AW’ers cap Nature into a closed circuit. Because the Models can’t accommodate natures variables.

There are many scientist who question these sensitivity values based upon closed capped Models of nature.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8192153#post8192153

The very foundation supporting AGW was setup using Mr Jones of CRU data.

One such paper that was used extensively was Jones, Wang 1990. Of which no data exists in support of that paper…NONE.

AND this above goes DIRECTLY to the “sensitivity values” issued.

crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.

Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York, are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990.

That paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Nature, claimed to answer an important question in climate change science: how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?

snip ]

And when, in 2007, Jones finally released what location data he had, British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

AS to peer reviewed issues:

The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.

guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued:

I really do not need to make a long scientific argument

Actually, that is exactly what would need to be done in order to show that AGW is anything more than an unproven hypothesis…LIVING in a MODEL…

The bible tells us in the book of Revelation that man will destroy the environment and God will judge them for it. Yes the environment can change by natural causes but there is little evidence that this is the major cause. Well to be fair I should say natural causes has a minor effect while manmade causes has a major effect.

You as many others, are confusing AGW with Conservation / environmental issues. Good stewardship is INDEPENDENT of AGW.

The rapid melting of the Polar Icecaps can only happen by an obvious cause and not a subtle one. For instance, if we had massive amounts of volcanoes simultaneously erupting all over the world for a period of 10 years then we could conclude this is the cause of global warming

Can you provide observational evidence that AGW has caused this? NO scientist has, to date. To do so, you would need to ignore that in recent history, the North West Passage was open before - without the aid of AGW.
.

CO and CO2 molecules are reaching a saturation point

Please provide us with evidence of this. ONCE again…The hypothesis of AGW exist in MODELS. We have no real world observation evidential proof of this claim made.

Willed ignorance to the facts surrounding the cause and effect of global warming and climate change is a formal cooperation with evil because it is a direct threat to human life and demonstrates a great lack of respect for human dignity.

Can you provide evidence of ONE solution offered by IPCC AGW’ers that we can change Climate even 1 C ? I will provide the maths needed in next post ].

Why do you think IPCC changed the name from AGW to Climate Change? AGW is Dependant on warming only. It ignores that Climate Cools, as well. Why do you think The Holy Father has not embraced AGW or it’s schemes…BUT recognizes Climate Change?

 

[kimmielittle]

This will show you “Impact” results.

I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],

Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

A number that is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignoreall other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

Now…Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…UNLESS, someone was making a killing…AND using AGW trying to scare us ??

You are welcome to test my math

---

OR

Quote:Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

Before you start preaching what we should do… Maybe, you should investigate what can’t be done…with what has been “Sold” as a fix to the unproven hypothesis of AGW and it’s supposed cure .

 

[Catholic90]

Al Gore is a man too full of himself. He craves the limelight and he has not been in it as much as he would like.

There is no overwhelming evidence of warming. Now the correct term is “climate change”, because some data suggests cooling.

Mars shows evidence if climate change as well. How are we responsible for that?

How are we responsible for the solar flares?

We take too much credit!

 

[kimmielittle]

We are stewards of the earth and we are called to good stewardship of the earth. But good environmental stewardship has been trumped by the love of money. Which the bible say’s is the root of ALL EVIL.

While this is all good and well said…WHAT do you think the AGW hypothesis AND it’s solutions depend on?

Good Stewardship also DEMANDS we are Good stewards of our economics.

IF you’ve done the Maths below, can you make sense out of the Cap and Trade schemes offered by IPCC as a “cure”???..AND this at the cost of TRILLIONS of dollars.

Who do you think Funds CRU?

Acknowledgements
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

You accused me of

"I believe your argument is willed ignorance

IMO it is willed ignorance to ignore these facts and repeat such claims of AGW that can not be proven.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One of the arguments that man is causing climate change is that the Arctic ice extent is decreasing.

The advocates of man-made global warming / climate change use *words *describing catastrophic reductions in Arctic ice.

YET, when you look at the graphs of satellite measurements of Arctic ice extent, ALL of the data occurs within a very narrow band with frequent ups and downs. The satellite record shows NO DRAMATIC REDUCTIONS OR DRAMATIC CHANGES … the satellite record just shows normal fluctuations. Nothing catastrophic at all, … rather boring, in fact.

When you add to that, the news media reports of Arctic ice extent, they show dramatic changes in anecdotal shoreline observations … going back many many decades … long before all this carbon dioxide and man-made industrial activity even began.

In other words, extreme changes occurred BEFORE the industrial stuff even started. So the earlier changes could NOT have been the fault of man-made activity.

In other words, radical changes in Arctic ice extent are normal and have been witnessed as being normal going back a century.

Other news media anecdotal observations of extreme climate changes go back several centuries.

And private diaries containing anecdotal observations of extreme climate changes and ice extent reductions go back to as early as the 1400’s.

[And then the cycle changes … it is cyclical … and then the ice comes back. And unexpectedly, whaling ships and fishing boats and explorers in their ships get caught in the ice and get marooned and crushed, leading to famous extraordinary expeditions that go out to rescue the stranded sailors.]

[It might even be a 30-year natural cycle … based on the other climate oscillations that go on.]

The point is that when Arctic ice extent is used as an argument for man-made global warming, the arguers conveniently omit arguments that counter their own argument.

The advocates for man-made global warming / climate change deliberately omit arguments FOR NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

OK, in college debates … NOT ok when arguing national economic policy changes.

Actually, omitting the contrary arguments is intellectually dishonest.

Basically, omitting the contrary arguments when debating national policy is a lie.

AGW … is false.

Some call AGW or man-made climate change a hoax … because there is a lot of study money at stake … IF they can keep the level of intensity of the argument high … The U.S. alone is spending $4 Billion per year on these studies.

And, Mr. Gore not only refuses to debate, but also the only argument he brings to the table is his demand that he get his way. Basically, he is throwing a hissy fit … HOW SCIENTIFIC IS SOMEONE WHO THROWS A HISSY FIT?

 

[Newbie2]

I believe Mr. Gore’s punctuated his words in a pathetic attempt to give gravitas to his ideas, which have pretty much been shown to be BS. Of course, he has become more wealthy giving such speeches, but on some level the frustration that nobody is listening to him is coming out; the armor has cracked.

So does the “spice” add (or subtract) to his credibility? I think not. He lost it quite a while ago.

 

[davidmlamb]

Part I

I asked you to provide observational evidence that AGW is something more than an unproven hypothesis. You know, direct correlation and causation supported by actual observational evidence that confirms AGW does more than only LIVE within models. .

Kimmie, I read your entire argument and I was not going to comment because I felt I would be wasting my time. But then I thought and prayed about it at mass today and I think it is important for our readers to have a response because to allow this nonsense to go unanswered fools people into thinking you actually have a scientific argument. In order for me to be able to answer your question properly, I would need to either publish research on the matter, or cite research (I will do the ladder). Now for the benefit of our reading audience, I will let you know that I am educated and work in the field of science and engineering, although my expertise is not in environmental science but physics and material science in which I hold a Bachelors and a Master’s degree respectfully.

I have co-authored a couple of scientific papers and published Master’s thesis on Vanadium and Titanium Oxide thin film response to visible monochromatic electromagnetic waves. I read quite a few scientific papers including papers written on global warming and as a junior scientist I am convinced based on the preponderance of the evidence that the current global warming trend we are experiencing is caused by human consumption of natural resources. I have also listened to many arguments from so called scientist who are skeptics and my evaluation of them is that they are disingenuous. I believe that the vast majority of the skeptics I have encountered are not concerned with the environment but with economics. It became quite clear to me when you made the following statements that economics is your concern and the environment is not.:

Who do you think paid for this attempted smear at big business? I have provided evidence many times here on CAF threads that it was Mr Soros organizations. .

So the crux of your argument is that global warming caused by human consumption is this big conspiracy by the left to rob the corporate world and the rich out of their money and the man behind the scheme is someone by the name of Mr Soros? Uh-huh. And then you go on to say in response to my case for ecological stewardship:

Who Good Stewardship also DEMANDS we are Good stewards of our economics. .

There is a difference between being a good economic steward and the love of money, which I pointed out before is the root of all evil. Does our reading audience think it is more plausible that environmental scientists are all in cahoots with one man (Mr Soros) in order to rob the corporate world and the rich from their wealth? Or that those who have deified wealth are protecting their beloved idol?

I think it would be best for our reading audience that instead of listening to rhetoric or even listening to an argument I can make, I will direct them to a few reputable websites such as National Geographic and the National Academy of Sciences. These websites are very informative and user friendly. Let our readers be the judge

koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

End of Part I

 

[davidmlamb]

Part II

So Kimmie, what does the church have to say about Global Warming’s cause and effect? The Vatican has their own scientists that do their own research and publish scientific papers. It is called “The Pontifical Academy of Sciences” (PAS).

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/

PAS is an elite group of 80 scientists with various religious backgrounds from around the world. Earlier this year PAS presented new evidence on climate change to the Vatican which prompted Pope Benedict XVI to make this statement;

We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life. We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish. Pope Benedict XVI April 2011

Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Ph.D, is a member of PAS. And a glacial and atmospheric researcher at Scripps Research Institution of Oceanography. Dr. Ramanathan and his team of researchers presented the Vatican with details about the impact of melting glaciers.

So now we have the Church telling us that man has a moral duty to act and clean up the environment by taking steps to not only prevent the human causes of global warming but to reverse them. So we must ask ourselves: has the Vatican casted in their lot with this vast conspiracy to rip off the corporate world and the rich? Or is it far more likely that man made global warming is real and the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit unto all truth is warning us and guiding us to act?

Well the right wing “religion” has answered by attacking the Church and the Pope characterizing them as left wing Marxist:

aim.org/aim-column/pope-continues-global-green-crusade-for-world-government/

I don’t know about you Kimmie, but when we have the right wing community (or anyone for that matter) viciously attacking the successor of Saint Peter who Christ left in charge of His sheep, it becomes clear to me who I should trust. We have solid scientific data which can easily be verified on the web that global warming main cause is by human intervention and we have the Church saying the same thing. Is it a vast left wing conspiracy to destroy Capitalism and implement Communism, or is it the truth? Let our readers be the judge

In the Service of Christ and His Church,

David Lamb

 

[kimmielittle]

Part I

Kimmie, I read your entire argument and I was not going to comment because I felt I would be wasting my time. But then I thought and prayed about it at mass today and I think it is important for our readers to have a response because to allow this nonsense to go unanswered fools people into thinking you actually have a scientific argument.Then why won’t you address what I’ve asked?

I definitely have a scientific argument.
And I invited you to present evidence of your claims.

Let’s make it easy: Can you provide evidence that even 1C can be changed by IPCC solutions? I gave you IPCC’s own math.

Can you provide evidence that the “sensitivity values” assigned by AGW’ers IPCC are not fabricated upwards?

Can you provide actual peer reviewed papers by Mr Jones? What about Data used by him?
Methodology?

Under OATH Mr Jones said.

The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think it would be best for our reading audience that instead of listening to rhetoric or even listening to an argument I can make, I will direct them to a few reputable websites such as National Geographic and the National Academy of Sciences. These websites are very informative and user friendly. Let our readers be the judge

koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

End of Part I

Do you even read what you linked?
ON MODEL PREDICTABILITY

Although the various climate models agree in most important respects, they do show differences. Why?

1. Natural Variability

It is difficult or even impossible to predict variations in natural causes, such as the Sun or volcanoes. And it is difficult to predict the complex interactions of other natural factors, such as the oceans, atmosphere, and ecosystems.

1. Human Choices

Future CO2 emissions will depend on future population growth, technology developments, and global policy choices. This is not a factor in the two models shown previously because both were driven by the same scenario.

1. Scientific Uncertainty

Climate models are not perfect reflections of the natural climate system. For example, a major source of the differences between the NCAR and GFDL climate projections shown here is the way each simulates the behavior of clouds.

koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/predicted04.jsp

The original data…methodologies…computer codes by Mr Jones et al is what fed these Models is… missing.

THE ONLY DATA set that isn’t connected / codependent is the data from satellites…AND it suggests a different view.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/