J
joshrp
Guest
Well goodbye. I’ll talk to you all later possibly.
- Status
K
kimmielittle
Guest
J
joshrp
Guest
It’s hilarious! The IPCC and all the AGW fanatics don’t even know that they are lying through their teeth. They believe their own lies. Or do they?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Well ask this question"
How many people reviewers ] of IPCC’s AR4 Chapter 9 report signed on that Global warming was caused by humans?
IPCC claimed 4000 reviewers.
On inspection only 60 were active
**5 five people ** signed on
Look it up for yourself. ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
J
joshrp
Guest
Do we really even need to take the IPCC seriously?
J
joshrp
Guest
The IPCC has shown that they have about as much scientific credibility as Bozo the Clown.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
Anyone that is arguing against kimmielittle and Monte’s position should watch this movie and get educated.
youtu.be/YaTJJCPYhlk
Anyone that continues to argue for manmade global warming after this video is hopelessly lost and should not be entertained.
youtu.be/YaTJJCPYhlk
Anyone that continues to argue for manmade global warming after this video is hopelessly lost and should not be entertained.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Globe warms up and polar ice caps melt causing temperature and whether fluctuations all over the world. Hence we have climate change resulting from global warming. Pretty simple isn’t it?
The Sun causes temperatures on Mercury and Venus to heat up too! Mercury is much closer to the Sun then Venus and yet Venus has hotter surface temperatures. Now I can tell you what causes this but you won’t like the answer. Its called GREEN HOUSE GASES (GHG)! Ever heard of it?
Pax Vobis,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Lynne calling you a deniers is not an attempt to gag your free speech. But saying that Al Gore should be put to death for his speech is. The question is why didn’t you object to the use of this violent rhetoric. Never have I even thought you should lose your life Kimmie because you oppose my position. Not even for your ad hominems.
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Obviously it was From Left Wing Globalist University, where our goals are to implement globalism by stealing all the wealth from the corporate world and the rich and redistribute it through schemes like cap and trade and expensive regulations. Obviously any real scientist knows that as we place billions of tons of carbon polutants in the atmosphere and devour our forrest and vegitation that God will intervene fix it. Real scientist have already proven that global warming is do to natural causes as it always has and therefore continued research is nothing more then a vast left wing conspiracy to steal more money from the rich and powerful
It is obvious to me that you have not read what I have actually said. Let me put it this way, here is what I did NOT say.
“I’m an Environmental scientist and an expert on climatetology and AGW has been proven and a theoretical model constructed.” Had I said anything remotely like this then your ad hominem may be justified. Most Universities teach that although AGW has not been proven the evidence seems to be headed in that direction. There is no theoretical climate model that proves EITHER WAY. So to attack a scientific opinion that AGW is plausibe and may be the culprit in climate change today brings into question your motives. Although scientist heatedly debate this they do not resort in personal attacks against someones education and training. Rather they simply present an argument disproving such a consensus.
What I have said is that although my expertise is NOT in environmental science or climateology I believe based on the arguments I have listen to and using my common sense and logic, that AGW may be happening and therefore may be the culprit in climate change today. There is nothing unprofessional or suspect about that statment. Moreover, I have also pointed out that both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI in union with the Catholic Bishops of the world has issued strong letters of caution and have called the world to environmental stewardship to greater levels then we have gone before. If this is the warning of the Church then we as Catholics ought to take action to safegaurd the environment. The scriptures teach us that the Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. So although science has not been able to prove or disprove AGW God knows the truth of the matter and has given us the Church which speaks the wisdom of God(Ephes 3:10). The wisdom of God calls us to a greater enviromnmental awareness; it calls us to action; it calls us to stewardship of what God has entrusted us with, the Earth.
Pax Christi,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Well I believe you are overstating facts. Climate change is happening and its affects are adverse. This would eliminate the word “remotely” in your cavalier response. What we are observing is that since the industrial revolution humanity has placed hundreds of BILLIONs of tons of carbons and other pollutents in the atmosphere and at the same time are using up our natural resources. We have not yet been able to link AGW to the cause; however, we HAVE NOT observed any natural causes to climate change either. The logicl suspect IMO is anthropogenic.
And I have not exactly said that.I am saying that the plausibility of AGW is greater then the plausibility of natural warming and cooling trends being the culprit. Trends have causes and effects and the cause of past climate change is not being observed today. If it were then this debate among the scientific community would not be happening.
Yet you forget this is a website of “dogma” called “Catholic ANSWERS.” Both Lynne and myself have given Catholic ANSWERS to Climate Change. You and Kimmie have given typical right wing responces which can also be considered dogma since it is rooted in a certain “dogmatic” philosephy.The implication in this philosephy is that we should continue in a business as usual course. For your fringe group, anyone who offers an argument against business as usual for laissez faire economics including the Catholic Church and the Pope are labeled the “Left Wing Lunatic Fringe” whose secret agenda is to take wealth from the rich and spread it around.
I suspect this is the case from every poster on this cite that has engaged in personal attacks by characterizing your opponants as idiots. Those are called “ad hominems” and they have no place in this forum. If you think I am in error simply give the facts of your case and leave out the personal attacks which are intended to humiliate and bully those who dissagree with your fringe group. As I have made it abundantly clear my expertise is not in this field but I believe I can speak intelligently about the plausibility of AGW and there are many scientist who would concur with me. That doesn’t bring their credentials or character into question and neither does it bring mine into question.
Pax Christi,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Again this is an overstatement of facts; the observable evidence is that global warming is happening and it has affected the climate. The polar Icecaps are melting at an alarming rate. We are not sure with precision what is causing it but we do know we are NOT observing any significant natural events that would cause the polar icecaps to melt like this. It is true that the earth has gone through significant climate shifts in the past 300+ million years but we have a very good idea of what caused those climate shifts and there is no observable evidence these natural events are happening today. What we have observed however is the billions of tons of pollutants including CO (a deadly gas that does not work in the photosynthasis process) and CH2, and not just CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
Moreover, we can graphically chart that corralation which shows a steady increase in average temperatures at the polar ice caps since the late 19th century with a steep slope in the past 50 years. CO2 emissions are only good IF there is equillibrium with the total mass of vegitation giving off O2 from the total mass of CO2 intake such vegitation receives. In other words, there must be an equillibrium of CO2 (name removed by moderator)ut to O2 output that maintains our current atmospheric conditions which are suitable for human life. Equillibrium may be disrupted when in addition to an over abundance of carbon and methane gases being created there is massive defforestization going on world wide and this is exactly what we observe happening today.The concern I have is will this disruption cause a new equillibrium where O2 molecules are replaced with CH2, CO or CO2 molecules. I don’t know the answer to this but I think a model for observation and testing can be constructed and observed to get an answer to this concern.
And I strongly agree with you. Life on Earth has continued to rebound under enormous catastrophic conditions triggered by natural disasters. But at the same time, historically the predominant species where wiped out and replaced with new species. Today, we are the dominant species. As the bible puts it we have “dominion over the earth and over every living creature.” We are a special creation made in the image of God and we posses a living soul. That calls us to the enormous task of taking care of our environment and doing whatever is within our power to make life continually adaptable for humans including their food supply and the life of species we live with and enjoy
I agree to a point but I think your argument is a little deceptive because it does not account for all species that have ever existed since the modern homosapien, which makes the total amount of species from that time reference until today time far less then 99%. And when you take into consideration the culpability man has with modern technology in the past 50 years then we have 99% of all those species still existing! So the fact that 99% of all species which ever existed are now extinct as a means to dismiss our stewardship and culpability is a moot point.
Homo Sapiens have only been here less then 150,000 years which is a fraction of all the life that has ever been here. Today however, because of advancements in human technology we have a greater culpability to our environment and the preservation of life on earth then we ever have before. I believe we have an ordained duty to preserve life as much as we can on earth. That means if a species is in danger of dying out and we have the power to preserve that species then we ought to do such. Not everyone is called to do this directly however we must cooperate with those who have been called to do this. I am sure St Francis of Assisi would agree with me on this matter. Economics and the pursuit of wealth should take a back seat to this task. There are inovative oportunities out there to turn this task into something that will be economically advantages and we ought to seek these solutions for the common good.
Pax Christi.
David
E
Edward_H
Guest
Someone pointed out in an article…can’t find it now…that the polar caps on Mars are shrinking. It would be neat to know for sure. Don’t take my word for it…but that would be an interesting point to factor into our thinking I suspect.
Here’s one reference: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/55741367.html
It’s all the more interesting to see the emphasis here on what is considered “controversial”. The common element hypothesis is considered controversial.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Admittedly this is the strongest evidence I have seen against AGW. Its news to me. However, if the polar ice caps on Mars and Earth are simotaneously shrinking it may suggest another phenomenom I am unaware of that may not have yet been directly observed. Off the top of my head It could be a positive change in photon momentum that may be caused by some unknown surge of energy from the core of the sun where photons originate (if I am recalling correctly). A greater momentum in photon packets can be caused by an increase in the Sun’s Luminocity but to my knowledge this has not been observed. Higher energy photons implies shorter wavelengths of light. Since the Sun does not put out monochromatic light an increase in ultra violet light photons is the first place I would look.
Pax Christi,
David
J
joshrp
Guest
Globe warms up and polar ice caps melt causing temperature and whether fluctuations all over the world. Hence we have climate change resulting from global warming. Pretty simple isn’t it?
The Sun causes temperatures on Mercury and Venus to heat up too! Mercury is much closer to the Sun then Venus and yet Venus has hotter surface temperatures. Now I can tell you what causes this but you won’t like the answer. Its called GREEN HOUSE GASES (GHG)! Ever heard of it?
Pax Vobis,
David
Polar ice regions melt and freeze back up every summer and winter, respectively. Showing me a picture or video of some ice melting doesn’t mean anything, because its happened every year for billions of years.
I don’t see the coasts being flooded, and I have relatives who live near the beech. Do you think the sea levels have risen too? If everything is melting, then why hasn’t any of this come to pass?
And honestly, the CO2 increase did not precede any increase in global temperature. Every time there was any temperature increase, the temperature rose first, and THEN the CO2 rose.
And honestly, we should start irrigating the deserts and bringing plantlife into places where there is not enough rainfall. Now THIS would change the climate. With projects like NAWAPA, we could start managing our water resources to start introducing plantlife to arid regions like the deserts in the Arizona, Nevada etc, area, where there is a lot of water shortages. You honestly don’t know anything about the environment at all. You just have this obsession with “greenhouse gases” and that is all you talk about. But you don’t know anything about gas. Why are we demonizing CO2? Don’t you know that plants need it to survive. The more CO2, the healthier the plants on the planet. The healthier the plants, the more rainfall, the lower the temperature.
J
joshrp
Guest
This is a turbulent period of time in our galaxy. I’ve been reading some stuff about magnetic fields and cosmic radiation and their influences on climate and earthquakes, etc. But this is a lot larger issue than just what is happening locally on the planet. Forces from throughout this galaxy are affecting these things too. We don’t know enough by far about these things to deal with them. I think that if we are really going to be serious about solving these problems, we need to reinvigorate our manned space program. The only way to know what these principles are that are affecting our planet is to start going out there and making discoveries.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I’m magically transported to a seemingly windowless - soundproof room.
I have no idea whether day or night.
A dog appears in the room.
I notice first off, the dogs wet paw prints.
I make a hypothesis: Wet paw prints - The dog must be wet - therefore it must be raining outside.
I factor in the wet paw prints into my model.
This model supports my hypothesis - The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside… COOL!!!
The dog comes near my chair - petting the dog, I find it’s fur is wet - therefor it must be raining outside.
I factor this into my model - this supports the dog prints.
This model supports my hypothesis - The dog is wet - because of wet paw prints and wet fur - therefore it must be raining outside… COOL!!!
Somehow, I receive a message from some scientist That in fact I’m not in a windowless - soundproof room.
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
I refuse to / won’t add this new information into my model.
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
Somehow, Another scientist is transported into the room.
He says " I see no clouds"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I hear no raindrops"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I hear no thunder"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I see no lighting "
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I see the dog swimming in the pond"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
Granted ignoring these other factors doesn’t disprove my hypothesis.
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
But how much credibility can i give the model that doesn’t factor in the rest of these observational evidences?
Here is the actual scientific words supporting a closed circuit model and hypothesis.
“We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2″.
But simple fact is: No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO-argument falls.
The ever changing cloud cover In models it’s held to an assigned sensitivity value - We have no evidence whether these forcings - feedbacks are Positive or Negative ]
Solar Radiation - In models these are held at a constant value.
Sun spots - not figured in
ENSO…Aren’t figured in
Ocean Osculations - aren’t figured in
Black Carbon - Soot Not CO2 ] not figured in
Methane - not figured in
And And…
Then we find out - Temperatures actually rise before CO2 rises.
With this:
Now my hypothesis comes back It’s raining outside - therefore the dog is wet
I have no idea whether day or night.
A dog appears in the room.
I notice first off, the dogs wet paw prints.
I make a hypothesis: Wet paw prints - The dog must be wet - therefore it must be raining outside.
I factor in the wet paw prints into my model.
This model supports my hypothesis - The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside… COOL!!!
The dog comes near my chair - petting the dog, I find it’s fur is wet - therefor it must be raining outside.
I factor this into my model - this supports the dog prints.
This model supports my hypothesis - The dog is wet - because of wet paw prints and wet fur - therefore it must be raining outside… COOL!!!
Somehow, I receive a message from some scientist That in fact I’m not in a windowless - soundproof room.
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
I refuse to / won’t add this new information into my model.
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
Somehow, Another scientist is transported into the room.
He says " I see no clouds"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I hear no raindrops"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I hear no thunder"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I see no lighting "
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
The other Scientist says " I see the dog swimming in the pond"
I ignore this, " What’s that got to do with my hypothesis?"
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
Granted ignoring these other factors doesn’t disprove my hypothesis.
The dog is wet - therefore it must be raining outside. My model tells me this.
But how much credibility can i give the model that doesn’t factor in the rest of these observational evidences?
Here is the actual scientific words supporting a closed circuit model and hypothesis.
“We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2″.
But simple fact is: No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO-argument falls.
The ever changing cloud cover In models it’s held to an assigned sensitivity value - We have no evidence whether these forcings - feedbacks are Positive or Negative ]
Solar Radiation - In models these are held at a constant value.
Sun spots - not figured in
ENSO…Aren’t figured in
Ocean Osculations - aren’t figured in
Black Carbon - Soot Not CO2 ] not figured in
Methane - not figured in
And And…
Then we find out - Temperatures actually rise before CO2 rises.
With this:
Now my hypothesis comes back It’s raining outside - therefore the dog is wet
K
kimmielittle
Guest
MUCH has been learned since 2004 … which is when most of the papers contrary to AGW - IPCC ] claims started to actually see the light of day.
This was reported in early Jan - Feb 2007.
We know solar cycles strongly affect such as ENSO Nina Ninos ] and these strongly affect Temperatures. It is no coincidence that the warmer year of 1998 also was the strongest la Nina and then the CO2 rise reported.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually…I did speak out to one of His first posts - go back and look post #66 of mine
Pretty uncharitable
K
kimmielittle
Guest
AN interesting read
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
- Status