Global Warming: Speech by Al Gore filled with vulgarity

[kimmielittle]

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).

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

This is IMO misleading if not dishonest. Why would you try to attribute these words to The Holy Father?

The Holy Father did NOT say those words.

The authors of those words are:

Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G. Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni, R. Pachauri, T. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A. Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J. Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F. Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, D. Zaelke

Look at the link you furnished AND read under what you quoted.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/

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.

As a junior scientist I invite you to actually read the paper in question and give us an objective Scientific view.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf

A report I gave:
Quote:AN investigation into the Pontifical Academy of Science Report. PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf
vatican.va/roman_curia/po…0511_final.pdf

Things we know.

We know this working group was called by M. Sánchez Sorondo.
We know the “workshop” lasted 2 whole days.
This suggest preconceived ideas / ideals.

Quote:Report authors met at the Vatican from April 2 to April 4, 2011 under the invitation of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of the pontifical academy. The report was issued by the Vatican and will be presented to Pope Benedict XVI.

sciencedaily.com/releases…0506093116.htm

We know:
It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper

We can tell this by no citations to claims made within the paper. NONE

As a religious paper for guiding Catholic / Christians.

Contact was made to one of the Pontifical Academy of Science Members to present a Catholic / Christian response.

That person is P.J. Crutzen. A member of the Pontifical Academy of Science ]

We know Mr Crutzen is the Lead author by his use of verbiage throughout. Such as the word “Anthropocene”. A word he has been trying to coin. economist.com/node/18741749

By Mr Crutzen’s definition “Anthropocene” equals “A Man Made World” Remember this ]

Being a “religious” response not a scientific paper ] one has to question:
Is it wise to sign your name to a religious response paper, as did Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo - when the lead Author is Atheist?

In fact Mr Crutzen seems to have radical associations with anti- Catholic / Christian beliefs.

He is a signer according to American Humanist Association, of Their Manifestos
americanhumanist.org/syst…spirations.pdf

The American Humanist Association has radical views of Catholicism / Christians.

examiner.com/atheism-in-n…ndalized-again

skepdic.com/atheistbus.html

Granted Mr Crutzen’s associations would not be cause to dismiss his Science - BUT this is NOT a Scientific Paper - It lacks any Citations for claims - and peer review in science isn’t done in a vacuum, as one here tries to insinuate.

Mr Crutzen, because of his chosen associations, AND this being a “Religious Call to Conscience” paper - FOR Catholics / Christians need not be my spiritual guide.

We know it was closed meetings with invited signatures of vested interests.
R. Pachauri ,For one, of India and IPCC fame. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

We are also told hikers took part / signed.

We can also see that Mr. Crutzen chose co writers of other papers in agreement with his views. by doing a little research ]…V. Ramanathan - Another co-lead comes to mind, but there are others.

This was indeed carried out / conceived in a Vacuum.

IMO The Pontifical Academy of Science gave an open door to Mr Crutzen and his mates. Allowing a misleading piece of propaganda to emerge.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”.

 

[kimmielittle]

EDITED

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.:

This is an attempted Ad Hominem You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence of this.

Attempts like this, I’ve found, are usually used by those that can’t / won’t answer my questions. I’ll include two “Scientist” that I’ve debated here at CAF - who could not / would not answer my questions.

 

[Petergee]

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…

This is a world-wide forum. The host obviously intends it to be that way. I don’t have an American flag and if I was into flag-flying (which I’m not) I certainly wouldn’t fly an American flag, the only result would be that my neighbours would think that I’d moved out and an American has moved in.

I suggest Monte amends his tag to “If you are an American and have an American flag, fly it where everyone can see it.”

(I won’t get into the whole “USA” versus “American” thing. I’ll leave that to the non-USA Americans.)

 

[kimmielittle]

This is a world-wide forum. The host obviously intends it to be that way. I don’t have an American flag and if I was into flag-flying (which I’m not) I certainly wouldn’t fly an American flag, the only result would be that my neighbours would think that I’d moved out and an American has moved in.

I suggest Monte amends his tag to “If you are an American and have an American flag, fly it where everyone can see it.”

(I won’t get into the whole “USA” versus “American” thing. I’ll leave that to the non-USA Americans.)

You can contact Monte here forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=113595

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is a world-wide forum. The host obviously intends it to be that way. I don’t have an American flag and if I was into flag-flying (which I’m not) I certainly wouldn’t fly an American flag, the only result would be that my neighbours would think that I’d moved out and an American has moved in.

I suggest Monte amends his tag to “If you are an American and have an American flag, fly it where everyone can see it.”

(I won’t get into the whole “USA” versus “American” thing. I’ll leave that to the non-USA Americans.)

Non-USA people can fly a banner that says “Kiss me, I’m Irish”. Or something like that.

However, my signature is not a mandatory order.

It’s not an order at all.

It’s merely an exhortation and a suggestion.

Flying the American flag is optional.

Not having an official position with CAF, my signature thing has no official sanction.

However, people in other cultures MAY, if they wish, fly an American flag.

I would have no objection if they did choose to fly an American flag.

OR, they could fly an American flag ONLY during their visits to the United States.

I would give permission for that.

Anyway, I did give as long of a nanny explanation as would fit in the space allowed.

I may edit my signature tomorrow.

I was thinking of just adding … “mandatory”

Or, suggestions will be submitted to the suggestions committee.

I’m thinking.

I may actually start a thread with a request for suggestions for a modified Signature.

Or, “my response to suggestions: NO!”

 

[lynnvinc]

I can understand Gore’s cursing under the circumstances. I myself have been known to use a bit of “french” occasionally - then make acts of contrition for it.

However, I’m wondering if “God damn it” is wrong in this case, since surely I would hope God would damn the devil, who it seems may in part be behind the climate change denialism. As social scientist, and I know I should look for causes within the social sciences (God’s laws of nature) – motivated cognition, employing confirmation bias (looking only for information that supports ones views, and ignoring the rest) – but the denialism has become so vicious, mean-spirited, and extreme as the proof and evidence of anthropogenic global warming is becoming ever stronger and more robust (it reached .05 on the null (95% confidence) way back in 1995, and has become ever stronger since), it seems the devil must be behind it, or at least whipping up the feeding frenzy against people like Al Gore.

I’m not saying denialists themselves are guilt-free, and that the devil alone makes them do it. All of us have a fallen nature, which helps explain in part why we are now causing global warming, and why we are so adament about denying that we are causing it. But I do think perhaps denialists are allowing the devil to spur them on.

It takes great courage, moral fortitude, and God’s abundant grace, and plenty of prayers to admit we are doing something wrong, then even more prayers and grace to help us find ways to mitigate climate change, then even more to implement them.

I am sure Al Gore is sorry for his tirade, and I am sure God forgave him.

Now if only those who are harming people and God’s creation through their contributions to global warming and other serious environmental problems would open their hearts to God’s mercy and forgiveness, I’m sure He will work wonderful miracles in their lives.

We should seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and not be so worried about harms that could come from becoming more energy/resource efficient/conservative and going to alt energy when feasible. It is just prudent to do those things…even if AGW is later found out to be false, bec they help in so many other ways, as well – financially, spiritually (the self-denial part), health-wise, solving other environmental problems, and leaving resources for others around the world and into the future. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

I was already becoming a Carmelite around 1990 when I started down this path of mitigating AGW in my personal life, so it didn’t bother me, but fit well my calling and promises to “tend toward evangelical perfection in the spirit of the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, obedience, and of the Beatitudes.”

I pray for goodness, humility, righteousness, wisdom and God’s mercy and grace for myself and for all of you.

 

[kimmielittle]

I can understand Gore’s cursing under the circumstances. I myself have been known to use a bit of “french” occasionally - then make acts of contrition for it.

However, I’m wondering if “God damn it” is wrong in this case, since surely I would hope God would damn the devil, who it seems may in part be behind the climate change denialism. As social scientist, and I know I should look for causes within the social sciences (God’s laws of nature) – motivated cognition, employing confirmation bias (looking only for information that supports ones views, and ignoring the rest) – but the denialism has become so vicious, mean-spirited, and extreme as the proof and evidence of anthropogenic global warming is becoming ever stronger and more robust (it reached .05 on the null (95% confidence) way back in 1995, and has become ever stronger since), it seems the devil must be behind it, or at least whipping up the feeding frenzy against people like Al Gore.

I’m not saying denialists themselves are guilt-free, and that the devil alone makes them do it. All of us have a fallen nature, which helps explain in part why we are now causing global warming, and why we are so adament about denying that we are causing it. But I do think perhaps denialists are allowing the devil to spur them on.

It takes great courage, moral fortitude, and God’s abundant grace, and plenty of prayers to admit we are doing something wrong, then even more prayers and grace to help us find ways to mitigate climate change, then even more to implement them.

I am sure Al Gore is sorry for his tirade, and I am sure God forgave him.

Now if only those who are harming people and God’s creation through their contributions to global warming and other serious environmental problems would open their hearts to God’s mercy and forgiveness, I’m sure He will work wonderful miracles in their lives.

We should seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and not be so worried about harms that could come from becoming more energy/resource efficient/conservative and going to alt energy when feasible. It is just prudent to do those things…even if AGW is later found out to be false, bec they help in so many other ways, as well – financially, spiritually (the self-denial part), health-wise, solving other environmental problems, and leaving resources for others around the world and into the future. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

I was already becoming a Carmelite around 1990 when I started down this path of mitigating AGW in my personal life, so it didn’t bother me, but fit well my calling and promises to “tend toward evangelical perfection in the spirit of the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, obedience, and of the Beatitudes.”

I pray for goodness, humility, righteousness, wisdom and God’s mercy and grace for myself and for all of you.

This tirade of yours IMO is unjustified, uncharitable, uncalled for. IMO

What you OR I do…Does not give us holier than thou rights. You my friend, do not know who or what is devil driven.

You have a belief in AGW…a hypothesis that has the very premise that denies That God’s Nature Controls Climate. A hypothesis started by those and reaffirmed by those who deny this. So Just WHO is diminishing God and His Nature?

I believe in God’s Natural Climate Change. Which has been with us since the dawn.

If people can not understand Good Stewardship is independent of the hypothesis of AGW - That Climate itself will change cooler OR warmer ] weather you believe in AGW or not.

Environmentalism / conservationist issues are not addressed in the hypothesis of AGW - NOR it’s offered solutions. Nothing offered, can "mitigate’ 1C of temperature RISE or FALL.

Science has an important role to play in understanding environmental issues and addressing those issues… IT HAS NO PLACE in POLITICIZED SCIENCE or PROMOTING SCHEMES of diverting economies INTO the Pockets of the RICH. IMO you can not get any closer to unchristian Ideals than this.

We were called to Good Stewardship way before the Church of AGW or the Church of IPCC…AND The Church of Bankers IMF]. Yes, they are Churches of religious beliefs…You with this post has proven that. You have to believe in what they are selling.

It is ironic to me that Catholics ask for Infallibility from Our Holy Fathers - Yet, don’t demand it from these above Churches…Yet…People will preach AGW - IPCC - IMF as if they be…Gospel.

If our Catholic / Christian Churches had so many imperfections as the Hypothesis of AGW’ers / IPCC CLAIMS… would we ignore them???

You have been asked for evidence of claims made…BOTH by you and AGW’ers and IPCC…When presented these questions that go contrary to the direct claims made by them…THEY GET IGNORED…who is the “denier”???

Can they even tell you an optimum temperature for the earth? Is it 0.5 C - 1.5 C degree HIGHER or LOWER than todays temperature??? If you AND THEM can not answer this one simple question…how do you define if UNNATURAL… Warming or Cooling is actually taking place?

Please don’t call people a “denier” until …The log from your own eye is removed.

I’m a Climate Realist…I recognize Climate for what it is…EVER CHANGING.

I understand that Good Stewardship is Independent of these AGW - IPCC Claims.

AND I DO MY BEST…I’m not holier or unholier than you.

Before we Preach…maybe, we should know what can not be done but has been sold by those Churches???

QUESTION: Do you ever let your Carmelite Superior read your posts?

 

[davidmlamb]

This is IMO misleading if not dishonest. Why would you try to attribute these words to The Holy Father? The Holy Father did NOT say those words.

The explanation is simple, sloppy work on my part. I rushed to respond and used this source which was in error:

kpbs.org/news/2011/may/10/catholic-church-goes-green-counter-global-warming/

— The Pope reached across the aisle of all denominations and all nations to address the issues of global warming. In a statement on the Vatican website, Pope Benedict XVI made a bold “call to action” for “all people in all nations.”

I knew the Vatican had recently released a statement and I attributed the quote as being from the Holy Father because I trusted the news source was accurate. That was sloppy work on my part but not an attempt to deceive.

But the real question here is your motives Kimmie. You started out this thread by suggesting that because Mr. Gore used profanity the premise of his thesis on global warming must be false. That was a deceptive argument. And as we can see you continue to make these straw-man arguments And now that I can see that you seem to be a pretty intelligent and educated person I have to ask myself why would you make these kinds of arguments? My opinion is, I think that you are more concerned with economics then the environment.

Although you have convinced me that many scientist who dissent from the majority (I have read most of your citations carefully), do not necessarily have an underlying agenda what you have not proven is that the primary cause of global warming is natural or that there is nothing humanity can do about it either way and therefore should not waist public money fighting it. This implication of yours brought up a grave concern regarding your response to the Holy Catholic Churches call to action.

Global Warming is not just a matter of science but a matter of morality and stewardship. The fact that more than 90% of all scientists and science organizations believe that Global Warming is primarily caused by manmade GHG is compelling enough to take action before it is too late. These same organizations believe that it is plausible that we can reverse the damage that has been done if we take action now. I believe that when you speak out in a public forum in direct conflict to the Catholic Bishops and the Pope’s call to action you act gravely irresponsible and cooperate with a possible intrinsic evil that can threaten human life and human dignity.

As a junior scientist I invite you to actually read the paper in question and give us an objective Scientific view…

My review is that their conclusions corroborate with the vast majority of the scientific community and that is compelling enough for me to concur based on the probability that global warming and climate change primary cause is a human induced Green House Gas (GHG) effect

Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Bishops and the Vatican objectively feel the same way or they would have never allowed this statement to be released and neither would it have remained on their website had they later decided it was not really an urgent matter and a moral issue. Our readers really need to read what the Church has felt important enough to publish on their website and draw their own conclusions. Our readers also should read or sample read everything we have cited for our arguments in order for them to make their own conclusions on this matter. I am confident that if they do they will agree with me and listen to the wisdom of the Church.

We know: It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper.

No it’s a paper authored by scientist from PAS based on their research and corroborated by the majority of the world’s scientists and organizations including NASA

We can tell this by no citations to claims made within the paper. NONE.

Yeah so what? Your conclusion is; no citations = false conclusion? There are plenty of scientific papers out there which corroborate PAS evidential findings. It is possible that there were citations but the Vatican edited them out.

Being a “religious” response not a scientific paper ] one has to question: Is it wise to sign your name to a religious response paper, as did Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo - when the lead Author is Atheist?.

OH MY GOD! If it was authored by an atheist it must not be true! But wait a minute! Didn’t you just say: We know: It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper.”?If it was authored by an atheist (which it was) then how can it be a religious paper? This is just another example of you being disingenuous in your arguments. Your earlier implications that Al Gore’s foul mouth is proof his thesis on global warming must be in error was just the beginning. What you are really telling Catholics Kimmie is that they cannot trust the judgment and discernment of the Church but instead we should listen to you. I believe the Churches discernment on this matter should be taken very seriously because it is through the Church that God speaks to and warns humanity. Science has at the very least shown climate change being due to human activity is very plausible and the Church has urgently asked the world to take action.

In the Service of Christ and His Church,
David

 

[kimmielittle]

But the real question here is your motives Kimmie.

What motives do you think I have?

I’m a kid.

You started out this thread by suggesting that because Mr. Gore used profanity the premise of his thesis on global warming must be false.

Actually wrong again.

Care to provide evidence that I did?

Here again is what I ACTUALLY SAID"

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

Then I answered your post;

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.

That was a deceptive argument.

No if you can not prove that I referred to MR Gores Scientific Credibility… BUT instead Mr Gore’s PERSONAL credibility…who’s deceiving whom?

And as we can see you continue to make these straw-man arguments

Actually they are not straw-man arguments I address…I address ACTUAL CLAIMS made by AGW’ers and IPCC…IF they be straw-man - they belong to the claimers.

And now that I can see that you seem to be a pretty intelligent and educated person I have to ask myself why would you make these kinds of arguments? My opinion is, I think that you are more concerned with economics then the environment.

Can you show me a “solution” offered by AGW’'ers and IPCC… that isn’t economically tied and actually environmentally based.

I get an allowance for chores done…From That money My Big Brother and I, buy, plant and tend 90 - 120 trees EVERY year…Along with other environmental / conservation programs…

You know …THINGS that ACTUALLY go to address environmental conservation issues.

I’m almost positive, my economics wellbeing would greatly increase…without spending on these issues - donja think?

Your attempted innuendos fail you, again! Contrary to how you try to paint me as some big Business. It is dishonest for you to keep implying as such IMO.

I tried to warn you, at least twice, that you had ABSOLUTELY no evidence of your claim.

I think that you are more concerned with economics then the environment.

Although you have convinced me that many scientist who dissent from the majority (I have read most of your citations carefully), do not necessarily have an underlying agenda

Progress …huh? I’ ll discuss the “Majority” issue later…Your Majority issue is held within the IPCC’s AR4 report itself ]

what you have not proven is that the primary cause of global warming is natural

AND NO ONE from IPCC or AGW’er has proved it is Unnatural. You - THEY can not even tell us an optimum temperature for the earth.

Can you?

If you OR THEM can not answer this one simple question…how do you define if UNNATURAL… …Warming or Cooling is actually taking place?

or that there is nothing humanity can do about it either way and therefore should not waist public money fighting it.

The ball lays in your AND IPCC’s ] court - Can you provide evidence that 1C degree can be change in temperature? IPCC can’t…

I’ll use Mr Hansens own words

James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the original global warming prophet scientist says:

Cap and trade, they attempt to put a cap on different sources of carbon dioxide emissions. They say there’s a limit on how much a given industry in a country can emit. But the problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if—as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased.

How about Friends of The Earth or Greenpeace?

the-classic-liberal.com/friends-earth-greenpeace-against-cap-trade/

AGW and IPCC offer nothing environmentally sound - They do offer Economic “solutions” that I’ve proved fail to address what THEY… themselves claim.

This implication of yours brought up a grave concern regarding your response to the Holy Catholic Churches call to action.

Global Warming is not just a matter of science but a matter of morality and stewardship. The fact that more than 90% of all scientists and science organizations believe that Global Warming is primarily caused by manmade GHG is compelling enough to take action before it is too late. These same organizations believe that it is plausible that we can reverse the damage that has been done if we take action now. I believe that when you speak out in a public forum in direct conflict to the Catholic Bishops and the Pope’s call to action you act gravely irresponsible and cooperate with a possible intrinsic evil that can threaten human life and human dignity.

Actually The Holy Father and Bishops and I are in complete agreement. Good stewardship HAS always been demanded of Catholics. Care to try to prove otherwise? AGAIN I remind you, Good stewardship is independent of AGW claims…BUT demands SOUND practices.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

My review is that their conclusions corroborate with the vast majority of the scientific community and that is compelling enough for me to concur based on the probability that global warming and climate change primary cause is a human induced Green House Gas (GHG) effect

Ummm THEN your review missed the obvious.

The call was for the world to cut by 50% to save the Himalayas. IPCC knows it isn’t CO2 that endangers the Himalayas…IT is Black Carbon…most of which is emitted by INDIA…ALL of it emitted REGIONALLY. AND INDIA refuses to cut Black Carbon. NOW IPCC Or one of the authors of this paper. Pachauri of INDIA and IPCC ]…will NOT tell you this. Why? Because the Himalayas are a poster child. This was the SAME exact Claim made by IPCC and debunked.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culprit—greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide—from other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers.

[snip ]
“Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, but black carbon doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks, so the effects of controlling black carbon are much faster,” Menon says. “If you control black carbon now, you’re going to see an immediate effect.”

newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/02/03/black-carbon-himalayan-glaciers/

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Global Warming is not just a matter of science but a matter of morality and stewardship.

ALL CLIMATE CHANGE is…YOU ALL insist on only Global Warming.

Global Cooling will be much harsher on humankind - OR Climate that Stagnates.

The fact that more than 90% of all scientists and science organizations believe that Global Warming is primarily caused by manmade GHG is compelling enough to take action before it is too late.

Care to provide evidence of your 90% claim?

Heres the three actions offered:

Cap and Trade Schemes
Carbon Credit Schemes
Population Control Schemes

None address the POOR…None address the Environment.

Just what is MORAL about any of the three?

These same organizations believe that it is plausible that we can reverse the damage that has been done if we take action now.

I gave you IPCC’s own math…Can you prove we can RAISE or LOWER 1C of temperature? Don’t attempt to call it a strw-man THIS is IPCC’s own Math AND Solution.

I believe that when you speak out in a public forum in direct conflict to the Catholic Bishops and the Pope’s call to action you act gravely irresponsible and cooperate with a possible intrinsic evil that can threaten human life and human dignity.

Show us the human dignity with any claim / solution made by IPCC.

Do you understand the harms these will cause to developing countries? Show me evidence that This is what the Holy Father or Bishops want.

Show me where to acknowledge these faults are an intrinsic evil

Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Bishops and the Vatican objectively feel the same way or they would have never allowed this statement to be released and neither would it have remained on their website had they later decided it was not really an urgent matter and a moral issue.

Think for 1 minute, please. You yourself, have stated the Pontifical Academy of Science has over 90 Scientists to call on.

Why do you think hikers, lawyers , IPCC lead etc were called upon…if not to present a vacuum? These are NOT members of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Our readers really need to read what the Church has felt important enough to publish on their website and draw their own conclusions. Our readers also should read or sample read everything we have cited for our arguments in order for them to make their own conclusions on this matter. I am confident that if they do they will agree with me and listen to the wisdom of the Church.

You might have a point here…BUT you don’t.

Also there…is this Pontifical Paper.
“Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development.”

It was spun this way.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Academy’s chancellor, told the Catholic News Service that the aim was to gather “an objective group of experts” in a search for “scientific clarity” on the subject.

BUT

“This event appears to have been hijacked by the GM lobby. Objectivity is the last thing anyone should expect from these ‘experts’,” said Prof. David Miller

WHO attended"?

But the 40 or so participants listed on the academy’s website are** all GM supporters, with many well known for their extreme pro-GM views or having vested interests in GMO adoption.**

The views of the speakers at the Pontifical Academy event are also seriously at odds with those of Catholic development organisations, as CIDSE - the international alliance of Catholic development agencies - has made clear in a letter to Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. The concerns of many in the developing world, including local Churches in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are also reflected in the working document presented by Pope Benedict for this fall’s Synod of Bishops for Africa. This points out that using GM crops risks “ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies” selling their GMOs.

Pope Benedict XVI has denounced the continued scandal of hunger in the world, saying its root causes have more to do with problems of distribution and sharing than with there not being enough food in the world.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said earlier this year that it was not a coincidence that in 2009 the use of genetically modified food crops grew by 13 percent in developing countries and that GM crops covered almost half of the world’s total arable land. And yet “the number of hungry people in the world has for the first time reached 1 billion people,” the paper said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm

powerbase.info/index.php/SpinWatch_condemns_Vatican_GM_event_as_a_“charade_by_vested_interests”

YET this paper resides on the Pontifical Academy Page

No it’s a paper authored by scientist from PAS based on their research and corroborated by the majority of the world’s scientists and organizations including NASA

Surely you are talking of the 4000 claimed researchers of such as IPCC’s AR4…are you not? Or the 60 who actually took part??? ]

mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

[kimmielittle]

It isn’t the first time The Pontifical Academy of Science seems to have hyjacked the “Science”

For some years the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body which debates scientific subjects so as to inform the Vatican on current science, seems to have been infiltrated by pushy individuals with a vested interest in promoting GM. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to manipulate the debate, some particularly pro-GM members of the Academy arranged a ‘study week’, entitled “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development’ which took place in May 2009 in Rome. The attendees invited to the study week were limited to well-known biotech promoters who could be counted on to reach the right conclusions. According to the organisers, the ‘study’ week was “not standard science” nor “a balanced meeting … (seeking) some kind of idiotic consensus”.

Without ‘debate’, ‘balance’ or ‘standard science’, the study week was clearly not a Pontifical Academy event. However at the time, the foregone pro-GM conclusion of the ‘study’ was successfully fed to the media as Vatican support for GM. This was done so cleverly that even the highly respected scientific journal, ‘Nature Biotechnology’, announced it, two months before the study week took place.

The misinformation was immediately corrected in the Catholic press, and things went quiet for over a year.

THEY EVEN WENT SO FAR as to try to Tell the Holy Father how to interpret Gods Word

This journal somehow contrives to take “a scientific approach to non-scientific issues”, seemingly giving it a free hand to say anything about anything, including advising to the Pope on how to interpret God’s Word (see Information Box below).

Excerpt from the study week final statement:
As an example of how far the study week’s final statement deviated from the Pontifical Academy’s scientific advice, it advises on the interpretation of God’s word: God apparently made us all stewards charged with altering the beings around our for our own nourishment using GM. Part of this particular ‘finding’ is reproduced below.

Faith, Scientific Reason and Ethics

For a believer, the point of departure for the Christian vision is the upholding of the divine origin of man, above all because of his soul, which explains the commission that God gives to human beings to govern the whole world of living creatures on earth through the work to which they dedicate the strength of their bodies guided by the light of the spirit. In this way human beings become the stewards of God by developing and modifying natural beings from which they can draw nourishment through the application of the methods of improvement. Thus … they … participate in the power of God and are able to build their world, that is to say an environment suited to their dual corporeal and spiritual life, their subsistence and their well-being. Thus new human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law that God has given to the Creation …

Note this insinuations that GM is “method of improvement” and genetic engineering can be used to make our food suited to our spiritual life as well as what you’d expect your food to do for you.

gmfreescotland.blogspot.com/2011/01/vatican-take-over-bid-round-ii.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Yeah so what? Your conclusion is; no citations = false conclusion? There are plenty of scientific papers out there which corroborate PAS evidential findings. It is possible that there were citations but the Vatican edited them out. No my conclusion is it’s wrong to try to pass this off as anything more than an Opinionated piece of propaganda. As a junior scientist you should know this???

OH MY GOD! If it was authored by an atheist it must not be true!

 

[kimmielittle]

No it’s a paper authored by scientist from PAS based on their research and corroborated by the majority of the world’s scientists and organizations including NASA

You mentioned NASA as if it’s in agreement.

Can you tell us what NASA agrees on?

What about your Majority?

Or your 90%?

Are “sensitivities” Forcings and Feedbacks ] Values agreed upon?

Does IPCC agree?

Issued values are from 3.4 to 5.7 Mr Hansen of NASA wants 7.0+ ] So NO one agrees on these - AND these values are what MODELS use to project AGW claims.

The higher the “sensitivity values” the higher the temperature rise. This is to the VERY heart of AGW claims.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

But, this research doesn‘t only show that there’s less heat being trapped in the first place; it also shows that the atmosphere unloads heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. If true, this means that the Earth‘s atmosphere isn’t holding on to warmth as long as some climate scientists say it is.

Do a Google but here is some

theblaze.com/stories/new-study-of-nasa-data-may-debunk-global-warming-predictions/

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/2/

THE PDF is here mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

So just what is the Majority agreeing on?

CO2 traps heat…BUT without “Sensitivity values” issued into MODELS of the 3.5 - 5.7 range - VERY little.

The basic hypothesis is accepted CO2 traps heat ] - UNTIL “sensitivity values” are injected INTO that hypothesis. Becoming The AGW hypothesis.

Simply put: How can we agree - when we don’t know OR have observational evidence showing causation and effect on this BASIC issue - “Sensitivity values”.

When we use terms such as Majority,Consensus …90 %…We leave SCIENCE.

And when we don’t say or give evidence as to exactly what is agreed on…we leave TRUTH.

Should anyone be cast as immoral or promoting an intrinsic evil…When Scientists .themselves, can’t agree?

 

[lynnvinc]

AND I DO MY BEST

God bless you.

If everyone were like you, then our American greenhouse gas emissions would not have increased 20% since 1990, but would have decreased by 20% or even 50%. And so many lives could have been spared from the local, regional, and global problems.

God bless you, friend.

When I have more time a bit later I’ll supply you with the proof that the climate change deniers are wrong as you requested.

 

[lynnvinc]

I should clarify that I am a Secular Carmelite (OCDS), and not a religious, so I don’t have a superior, but the president of my community does know that my personal apostolate is to promote global warming awareness and “the Little Way of Environmental Healing,” fashioned after St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, which is why I speak of taking baby steps to reduce environmental harm, and that one’s love makes those tiny measures infinite…as Mother Teresa would say about our small deeds to help the poor.

I want to extend my apologies to those who were offended by my previous post – my bad – especially since it appears that we can all agree that it is just good stewardship to do all those things that help mitigate climate change, even if climate change were later shown to be false. It just makes good economic, spiritual, financial, health, and environmental (other problems aside from GW) sense to do those things.

So it really isn’t even necessary to carry on a discussion about global warming (or to chastize Al Gore and those who accept that AGW is happening), but since I was asked for sources – as maybe some here may genuinely want to know what the climate scientists have to say about the skeptical arguments – I thought I should include these sites:
-realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
-skepticalscience.com/argument.php
If one still wants further clarification, one could directly ask the climate scientists, who have been most gracious in answering the various questions I have had over the past 21 years. And it is always good to keep up with science journals, such as SCIENCE, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences), NATURE, PHILOSPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A, etc.

And another tool is to do a Google Scholar search.

 

[kimmielittle]

God bless you.

If everyone were like you, then our American greenhouse gas emissions would not have increased 20% since 1990,

Wait a minute…You are talking about CO2, correct?

You say this like CO2 is a bad thing.
Can you prove this please?

HERE’s what you need to offer evidence.

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

BUT have a go at it…

For each of these there is no scientific proof. There is much real-world scientific proof
showing they are not occurring.

There is solid proof that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not a cause.

Temperature RISE PRECEDES…CO2 RISE. From 400 - 800 years. NOW Mr Gavin Schmidt Of NASA RealClimate Fame ] would say The laws of Physics changed after The 1800;s This is truly staggering on the denial of the fact that the same physical laws operated 6,000 years ago and in Schmidt’s case, even as recently as 200 years ago. …but don’t exist today???- It would seem MR Schmidt obeys physical laws one way - but denies those same forces… when the are inconvenient truths }.

And so many lives could have been spared from the local, regional, and global problems.

How does reducing CO2 save lives? Do you know what empirical evidence is? That is what you will need to provide evidence of this.

What WOULD have saved lives…IN everyone of these instances…IS getting rid of Corrupted / inefficient Governments - economies - Response Teams - We have empirical evidence of this.

Please provide real-world scientific evidence that human carbon dioxide CO2 ] is dangerous…

Yet, Nature’s identical carbon dioxide remains essential to all life on Earth.

Here’s a way to understand carbon dioxide basics:

Carbon dioxide CO2 ] is a natural trace gas made up of one carbon and two oxygen molecules… being just 0.0385% of the atmosphere—in every 2,600 molecules of air, that’s just one 1 molecule of CO2;

Of Earth’s annual carbon dioxide production, Nature produces 97%. - All human activity produces only 3%.

This means that in every 85,800 molecules of air, one 1 molecule is CO2 produced by humans and 32 molecules are CO2 produced by Nature

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The alleged problem with carbon dioxide is that it allegedly causes global warming, which it does not. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the air continues to increase, but the temperature has been going down for ten years. So, the connection that carbon dioxide causes global warming is false.

I found this:

In fact, carbon dioxide … CO2 is not a toxic substance … unless your lips are wrapped around the exhaust pipe of a car.

Sarcasm intended.

Source for the information below is a bunch of different Web sites and a book or two, but it only took me a short time to collect it.

I do invite you to do additional research, but I do ask that you refrain from making blanket, global statements that are false.

---

The increase of carbon dioxide is not a cause for alarm and, in fact, will be good for mankind.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the gas of life for plants, man, and animals. All plant life is sustained by photosynthesis, where CO2 plus water plus the Sun’s energy form carbohydrates plus Oxygen. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process.

[All high school freshmen should know all this from their biology classes and should have studied and drawn the details of plant leaves.]

According to the Mauna Loa observatory the present atmospheric CO2 is about 385 ppm (parts per million.), but in times past it was as high as 2450 ppm. (Jaworoski, 1992a,1992b).

[Some contend that Mauna Loa is not a good place to measure it because the ocean is the major source and sink of carbon dioxide and Mauna Loa is in the middle of the ocean.]

Normal CO2 concentration varies = ~ 300 ppm = 0.03%

In order to increase their yield, commercial greenhouses may increase CO2 concentration to 600 to 1500 ppm or more = 0.06% to 0.15%

1000 ppm = 0.1%

We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.

10,000 PPM = 1% drowsiness

20,000 ppm = 2% feeling of heaviness; awareness of deeper breathing

30,000 ppm = 3% breathing rate doubles

Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth.

50,000 ppm = 5% breathing rate increases by four times normal.

above 50,000 ppm = more than 5% toxic level of carbon dioxide.

If atmospheric CO2 drops to the 220 ppm, plants get sick. They start to die at 160ppm. In a field of corn on a sunny day, unless wind currents stir up the air, all of the CO2 is consumed within one meter of the ground in 5 minutes. Nighttime levels in a greenhouse range from 400 to 500 ppm due to plant respiration. Shortly after sunrise this level will drop to normal atmosphere (300 ppm) due to the plant using the early light to start photosynthesis. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, then growth is practically stopped. So, CO2 levels need to be monitored and adjusted with carbon dioxide generators if necessary.

If some of the carbon dioxide sequestration [a poor idea under any circumstances] people want to find a place to get rid of it, they might want to consider spreading it on farm fields … just like other fertilizers.

 

[kimmielittle]

I should clarify that I am a Secular Carmelite (OCDS), and not a religious, so I don’t have a superior, but the president of my community does know that my personal apostolate is to promote global warming awareness

I admire your dedication…BUT why not Promote Natural Climate Change Awareness?.. As The Holy Father does.

WE have absolute evidence that Natural Climate - Changes.

Right now, we seem to be in a slightly warmer phase.

I’m sure…The Holy Father knows that cooling will be even harsher on humankind. We have to be ready for ALL cycles.

Please remember, Pollution, environmental, conservation issues are Independent of AGW Claims

If I can help you promote Natural Climate Changes…

 

[lynnvinc]

The fact that more than 90% of all scientists and science organizations believe that Global Warming is primarily caused by manmade GHG is compelling enough to take action before it is too late…Science has at the very least shown climate change being due to human activity is very plausible and the Church has urgently asked the world to take action.
Hi David.

Thanks for speaking up for righteousness.

I’ve been following this issue like a hawk for over 21 years, reading the scientific studies, etc.

It is actually 100% of bona fide, working climate scientists who say anthropogenic global warming is happening, even the ones heavily funded by fossil fuel industries, like Lindzen (who simply say won’t be as bad as others claim). The other supposed “scientists” (whether they have PhDs, DDSs, DDs or whatever) who say AGW is not happening – and they are legion – are not climate scientists and do not publish in respectable, top-tier, peer-reviewed science journals.

If your ears can take more profanity (and I understand perfectly why climate scientists and those concerned about life on earth are turning to it nowadays, tho I don’t approve of it), here is an interesting & fun video (not recommended for sensitive viewers): youtube.com/watch?v=H7wdKg8rYL0

You can read the meta-science studies (of science) regarding this 100% consensus. For instance, works by Naomi Oreskes:

• “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” in SCIENCE, 2004, 306(5702), available at citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.3835&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Speaking about her book, Merchants of Doubt at youtube.com/watch?v=i1RyHTDycng

The first studies to reach scientific certainty on AGW came out in 1995:

• Kerr, Richard A. 1995. “Studies Say -Tentatively -That Greenhouse Warming is Here.” Science 268(5217):1567-8.
• Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. 1996. Climate Change 1995: the Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. NY: Cambridge University Press.

And over the next 16 years the science has become ever more robust, with all bona fide climate scientist in total agreement that AGW is happening. That’s a done deal. I’ll post more sources in a later post, as Kimmie wants them.

The next question is how bad will AGW be, and most agree it will be bad for life on earth, esp under a business-as-usual scenario. If you believe the oil-funded scientists, not very bad. If you believe sincere scientists, it could be very bad. Hansen (I can’t imagine a more sincere and honest person…tho the denialists have mounted a smear campaign against him too) has suggested it could mean the end of all life on earth. This is cutting edge, and not all climate scientists are on board with him…yet. But here is his conference paper that suggests this (see esp. page 24): columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

Our Holy Father, JPII didn’t have to wait until 1995 & 95% scientific confidence (and neither did I). He admonished us back in 1990 in his 1/1/90 “Peace with All Creation” statement that mitigating global warming (then referred to as the greenhouse effect) was EVERYONE’S responsibility, and his and BXVI messages on this have never waivered since – it is our responsibility and duty to mitigate it.

And why would I need 95% certainty that I am harming and killing people, to start my efforts at ceasing and desisting? Luckily those efforts also saved us $1000s over the past 21 years, without lowering our living standards, reducing our GHGs by 50%.

Anyone who tells you that it is not our responsibility to mitigate AGW is plain and simple at odds with the Church and its environmental teachings (and they are missing out on a lot of financial savings and better health). End of story.