Global Warming

[CatholicLeft]

Your first statement is completely irrational. Please explain what you mean.

As to the Pope’s message.
The Holy Father is saying we have a responsibility to be good stewards to the environment. I agree with him 100%. He does not support or endorse your argument

He states nothing about global warming or mans role in climate change. How do you read this into it?

Furthermore ,even if he had supported your position, it would not be a matter of Faith or Magisterial teaching.

Once again, you are citing material as a reinforcement of your position that does nothing of the sort. Once again, it debunks your argument.

Well I guess my argument would come back to that the cause of global warming is really irrelevant. We are called, yet again, to be good stewards to the environment. So as such we need to treat each threat, real or perceived, seriously. By trying to dis-credit or denying that there is a problem is dangerous and irresponsible. I can sit here all day and argue that there is no poverty in the world and that our church is wrong to fight something that is really not there. Does that make it not so? The Church is not a scientific institution. The Church needs to trust the science community that when there are some that say that there is a threat to our environment, the same environment that we vow to protect, that we step up to the plate and do our part. For we are not a timid or weak Church. And if after we take up the fight and combat global warming and it turns out that there was no real threat, who has this hurt? No one! It is better to take all threats seriously then to deny there existence, cause someday that real danger will get through and we will all be harmed.

 

[Oscarthecat]

OK, apparently mans role in saving mankind from global warming is just as important as saving mankind from homosexuality. Whether we are the cause of it remains debatable, but apparently we are being called to fight it, which, I guess, shows it does exist.

Did you read your own quote?

There is no mention of “global climate change” or any instruction to pursue any particular course of action.

All that is said, as has been said for the last 2000 years, is that we are stewards of creation, and must be generous and responsible with the resources God has given us.

In fact, there is an excellent line in your quote which sums up my position perfectly…

“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”

I’m just asking that you step back from your foregone conclusions and evaluate your own position objectively to determine who stands to gain the most from this climate change hysteria- and then try to trace their involvement back to the beginning of this whole issue. It all kind of unravels from there.

 

[Valke2]

Ocean acidification driven by climate change is stripping away the protective shell of tiny yet vital organisms that absorb huge amounts of carbon pollution from the atmosphere, a new study has revealed. news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090309/sc_afp/environmentclimatewarmingoceansacidification_20090309114331

 

[Valke2]

Is it a smart idea to invest in becoming energy independent? Specifically, to develop renewable energy resources and higher standards of energy efficiency so that we are not dependent on oil from the mideast or South America?

 

[trinitybeliever]

Well I guess my argument would come back to that the cause of global warming is really irrelevant.

That statement defies logic.

We are called, yet again, to be good stewards to the environment.

Agreed.

So as such we need to treat each threat, real or perceived, seriously.

**Perceived by whom?

How about Global Cooling?

How about Asteroids causing catastrophe when they collide with earth?

How about alien abduction?

How about the theat of microwaves cooking our brains? (Foil hat anyone?)

Or better yet, how about the very real threat of socialism imposing it’s Godless philosophy on this country, or the imposition of Sharia law on increasingly more societies?

How about the threat of ignorance?

What other perceived threats are “we” obligated to treat seriously? **

By trying to dis-credit or denying that there is a problem is dangerous and irresponsible.

Not nearly as dangerous as working to stifle debate or silence it altogether.

I can sit here all day and argue that there is no poverty in the world and that our church is wrong to fight something that is really not there. Does that make it not so?

This is a straw-man argument. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The Church is not a scientific institution.

No argument here, Although you should know that the church is open to sound science. In fact, the Catholic Church invented modern scientific method. Because, the church is, has and always will be about Truth.

The Church needs to trust the science community that when there are some that say that there is a threat to our environment, the same environment that we vow to protect, that we step up to the plate and do our part.

The Church trusts The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The Church trusts the TRUTH! The Church doesn’t “need” to trust “some scientists” no matter what their claim especially a “perceived” claim!.

For we are not a timid or weak Church.

OK

And if after we take up the fight and combat global warming and it turns out that there was no real threat, who has this hurt? No one!

Who will be Hurt? try these, Free Enterprise, Industry, Agriculture, Capitalism. In other words, everybody who will no longer be able to access affordable food and energy! Those who exercise and cherish freedom and liberty will be hurt.

It is better to take all threats seriously then to deny there existence, cause someday that real danger will get through and we will all be harmed.

**I agree, it is better to all take threats seriously, but you see CatholicLeft, I see you and those that share your thinking on this as the real threat.

Please do not misunderstand, I believe your intentions are good and you may be a very nice person.

Although, I do not believe you understand the implications of what you are causing.

I pray that you have an open mind on this issue.

God Bless**

 

[Oscarthecat]

Is it a smart idea to invest in becoming energy independent? Specifically, to develop renewable energy resources and higher standards of energy efficiency so that we are not dependent on oil from the mideast or South America?

We could be energy independent very quickly if private companies were just allowed to harvest the oil reserves within our own borders and expand our nuclear power infrastructure.

I know- it sounds completely crazy.

 

[Appleby]

We could be energy independent very quickly if private companies were just allowed to harvest the oil reserves within our own borders and expand our nuclear power infrastructure.

I know- it sounds completely crazy.

Oh, only if your real intention is to destroy capitalism and send us back to the 13th century…

I am going to stop following this thread. Thank you for the trip back in time to university days.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oh, only if your real intention is to destroy capitalism and send us back to the 13th century…

Now that is a non sequitur statement if I’ve ever seen one…

So, what you’re saying is that energy independence with windmills and solar power cells that take exponentially more money to produce a fraction of the energy of oil and nuclear sources is OK for our economy, but using our own oil and nuclear energy to obtain energy independence will collapse our whole system to a pre-capitalist state.

Unless, of course, you’re talking about what might happen to those countries that have become completely dependent the sale of oil - their economies might run into some trouble.

 

[Valke2]

**

I pray that you have an open mind on this issue.

God Bless**

I just received 100% of my RDA of irony.

 

[Calliso]

I just received 100% of my RDA of irony.

LOL yeah I think I just did too…

 

[Valke2]

We could be energy independent very quickly if private companies were just allowed to harvest the oil reserves within our own borders and expand our nuclear power infrastructure.

I know- it sounds completely crazy.

Except it wouldn’t do it. do you have any idea how many nucelar power plants would be necessary? Each one a potentional terrorist target.

And the cost involved indoing so as well as the cost involved in expanding refineries and exploration, we might as well put that money into what is undoubtly the future of energy consumption-- clean renewable eneregy.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Except it wouldn’t do it. do you have any idea how many nucelar power plants would be necessary? Each one a potentional terrorist target.

And the cost involved indoing so as well as the cost involved in expanding refineries and exploration, we might as well put that money into what is undoubtly the future of energy consumption-- clean renewable eneregy.

That would make sense, if there wasn’t that pesky little fact that we have actually built an energy infrastructure based on oil and fusion…

In any event, you go ahead and start building those windmills…here’s some fun information about wind power before you get started, though…

maybe you should read this article on the success of alternative energies in a difficult economic market…
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5755210.ece

Also, consider these figures…

6,668 wind turbines to provide the same amount of power as one nuclear plant.
You can put up to 3 nuclear plants on 4,000 acres.
6668 wind turbines would require 146,696 acres, or 229.21 square miles- and each of those 146,696 windmills would need to be connected by a high voltage power line.

Also, those figures are only accurate IF the wind blows at peak speeds every every minute for 30 years, without stopping- and if there are no mechanical failures or unforseen accidents. It is rather difficult to believe that at least a few of those 146,696 windmills won’t break down at least once in a while- some might even need to be replaced. But I think it is a just silly to expect the wind to blow at peak speeds that consistently.

But even if the wind was blowing at peak speeds 70% of the time, that means you need to add 30% to the figures I’ve already quoted.

We could have windmills from coast to coast, and it wouldn’t be enough.

21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Windmills_cant_fly.pdf

Oh, and another thing to consider…you might want to consider how much of the real consumer costs of wind energy are hidden by government subsidies, and how much the real consumer costs of nuclear energy are artificially inflated by costly government interference. I won’t post articles on that- you can find that research easily enough on your side of the fence, from people who celebrate the fact that the government is interfering with the real market forces involved in production and sale of energy.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Except it wouldn’t do it. do you have any idea how many nucelar power plants would be necessary? Each one a potentional terrorist target.

And the cost involved indoing so as well as the cost involved in expanding refineries and exploration, we might as well put that money into what is undoubtly the future of energy consumption-- clean renewable eneregy.

Oh, and the timing on THIS article couldn’t be better…

nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1236403546194340.xml&coll=1

 

[trinitybeliever]

I just received 100% of my RDA of irony.

I was hoping for more from you. Instead, all you seem to provide is misdirection. First when you thought it would reinforce your argument you cited two separate items that did offer your position credibility.

Proof of my open mind is that I am asking questions, which gives you an opportunity to educate me. I am ready to be corrected, however I am not rolled easily.

Instead of handing out offhanded insults why don’t you address the questions put forward.

Your arguments can stand up can’t they?

Do you believe in friendly healthy debate?

Mind you, I am not trying to be unfair to you. I am just attempting to get past the propaganda.

God Bless.

 

[trinitybeliever]

That would make sense, if there wasn’t that pesky little fact that we have actually built an energy infrastructure based on oil and fusion…

In any event, you go ahead and start building those windmills…here’s some fun information about wind power before you get started, though…

maybe you should read this article on the success of alternative energies in a difficult economic market…
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5755210.ece

Also, consider these figures…

6,668 wind turbines to provide the same amount of power as one nuclear plant.
You can put up to 3 nuclear plants on 4,000 acres.
6668 wind turbines would require 146,696 acres, or 229.21 square miles- and each of those 146,696 windmills would need to be connected by a high voltage power line.

Also, those figures are only accurate IF the wind blows at peak speeds every every minute for 30 years, without stopping- and if there are no mechanical failures or unforseen accidents. It is rather difficult to believe that at least a few of those 146,696 windmills won’t break down at least once in a while- some might even need to be replaced. But I think it is a just silly to expect the wind to blow at peak speeds that consistently.

But even if the wind was blowing at peak speeds 70% of the time, that means you need to add 30% to the figures I’ve already quoted.

We could have windmills from coast to coast, and it wouldn’t be enough.

21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Windmills_cant_fly.pdf

Oh, and another thing to consider…you might want to consider how much of the real consumer costs of wind energy are hidden by government subsidies, and how much the real consumer costs of nuclear energy are artificially inflated by costly government interference. I won’t post articles on that- you can find that research easily enough on your side of the fence, from people who celebrate the fact that the government is interfering with the real market forces involved in production and sale of energy.

Makes sense to me!

 

[Michaelo]

Why is the post so confusing. Basically in any equation you must include all variables. I’m assuming you have a basic math education. The Al Gore followers only use equations that benefit their global warming scam.

With regards to sunspots, which have been accounted for:

“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum,” said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004.

“Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth,” Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.

source

And yes, I do have a basic math education.

 

[Valke2]

look Down Under. A decade into its worst drought in a hundred years Australia is a lesson of what the American West could become. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090310/us_nm/us_water_2

scientists are concerned that the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are already out of date.

Their data suggests greater rises in sea levels this century. The IPCC was widely criticised for stating that sea level rise this century would only amount to 59cm (23in).

The most recent data, to be presented here, will suggest a far higher figure with dramatic implications for many island nations and coastal regions.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7934046.stm

 

[trinitybeliever]

look Down Under. A decade into its worst drought in a hundred years Australia is a lesson of what the American West could become. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090310/us_nm/us_water_2]

Are you saying Australia had a drought equal to or worse than this 100 years ago?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Are you saying Australia had a drought equal to or worse than this 100 years ago?

well, yeah- you see, it is very simple…

THIS one is caused by -]global warming/-], uh, -]global cooling/-], err…-]global climate change/-]…ugh- selfish human beings who are wrecking everything

but THAT one happened because it was part of a 100 year cycle…

See- there’s no connection whatsoever.

 

[trinitybeliever]

well, yeah- you see, it is very simple…

THIS one is caused by -]global warming/-], uh, -]global cooling/-], err…-]global climate change/-]…ugh- selfish human beings who are wrecking everything

but THAT one happened because it was part of a 100 year cycle…

See- there’s no connection whatsoever.

Priceless.