Global Warming

[vz71]

We need major tax incentives for the existing energy companies as an incentive to bring more clean energy on the grid. And we need to have a agreed upon base price for a gallon of oil and coal so that companies that are going to invest in clean energy don’t have to worry about having their hundred million dollar investments tanked by falling energy prices.

I’d also like to see higher efficiency requirements in air conditioners, refrig., monitors and televisions.
Get rid of the incandesant bulb and give homeonwers a rebate for the cost of purchasing LED lights.

This I can agree with.
Not to fight off some supposed climate change, but to gain independance on foreign energy sources.

Perhaps all of those in support of a ‘green’ ideology should read this and take note. If you want my support of a green project, show me the economic benefit.

 

[Atzlan]

So the invisible all powerful being option you are ok with. But man taking steps to save the planet, that you find absurd?

I debated whether to include that a person has to believe in God to
believe in relying on God to handle minor things like temperature,
but I guess I was wrong in assuming anyone in a Catholic forum
would believe in God. Man can hardly balance his check book
much less do anything to affect change in the earth’s temperature.
I do find this absurd and if we need to be saved from anything, it’s
from people like you who wants to impose financial burdens on
everyone and everything on something that doesn’t exist. God created everything out of nothing, the second point I chose not to
include because I thought it was just stating the obvious, and to show His Love for us, He sacrificed His Son on the cross. To go
through all that just to let man destroy His creation, is beyond
absurd. Seek ye first the kingdom of God not the kingdom of man.

 

[Ender]

And just in case some more names in case they are not all listed in the link … the White House

I overlooked this reference in my earlier response but it deserves special comment. President Obama appointed Dr. John Holdren of Harvard to be his science advisor. In 2007 Holdren presented a paper titled “Global Climate Disruption: What Do We Know, What Should We Do?” In that paper he says this:

*Facing the dangers from climate change … there are only three options:

Mitigation
Adaptation
Suffering*

Under mitigation he cites the reduction of CO2 releases as critical and the first item on his list of ways to reduce the growth of energy use is … “reducing population growth.”

If you want to know the ideology driving the AGW scare, there it is.

belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/uploads/2007_11-6_Forum_(NXPowerLite).pdf

Ender

 

[otjm]

Mayors from more than 350 cities across Europe signed an EU climate change agreement Tuesday pledging to cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20 percent by 2020.
news.aol.com/article/european-cities-sign-climate-change/317831?flv=1&icid=rbox_news.M

Which only shows a game of follow the leader, not that there is any proof of what, if any impact it will have on global warming. I have seen many, many statements that human activity is causing global warming; but the evidence of how much, to what degree, and what else (sunactivity, e.g.) is also contributing and to what degree is minimalized at best and lacking solid consensus.

As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.
aim.search.aol.com/search/search?&query=climate%20change%20news&invocationType=TB50TR

Fine; there is some global warming - but the essential question - to what extent is human activity driving this - is not answered.

Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming …The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
aim.search.aol.com/search/search?&query=climate%20change%20news&invocationType=TB50TR

Again, a political statement, not a showing that human activity is anything other than a minimal impact on the whole cycle.

A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. ibid.

But fails to say what the source of the increase of carbon emissions is - or sources. The presumption is that it is primarily caused by human activity. And “catastrophic” is a word that gets bandied about as a politicl cudgel.

Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy (U.S.), said, “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen…[We’re] looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.
pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=494

And that is political b*&l s^%$. No more agriculture in California? There is agriculture in Honduras which has a warmer climate than California; I spent a year in Viet Nam which has a yearly temperature profile that is higher than anything in California; the desert may get hotter in the summer in California, but is colder in the winter. And believe me, stuff grows in Viet Nam like no weeds you have ever experienced. They are one of the, if not the largest growers of rice - which is grown in California also. What a hoot - no agriculture in California. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Look out, the weight of it will crush you!. Hog wash! This guy should go to selling bridges, and ocean fron property in Arizona.

No agriculture in California? None? I am supposed to believe this tripe?

That kind of

 

[otjm]

I overlooked this reference in my earlier response but it deserves special comment. President Obama appointed Dr. John Holdren of Harvard to be his science advisor. In 2007 Holdren presented a paper titled “Global Climate Disruption: What Do We Know, What Should We Do?” In that paper he says this:

*Facing the dangers from climate change … there are only three options:

Mitigation
Adaptation
Suffering*

Under mitigation he cites the reduction of CO2 releases as critical and the first item on his list of ways to reduce the growth of energy use is … “reducing population growth.”

If you want to know the ideology driving the AGW scare, there it is.

belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/uploads/2007_11-6_Forum_(NXPowerLite).pdf

Ender

Oh, shock of shocks. Back to the same old tripe - which is a neatly disguised racism at its heart.

 

[otjm]

This I can agree with.
Not to fight off some supposed climate change, but to gain independance on foreign energy sources.

Perhaps all of those in support of a ‘green’ ideology should read this and take note. If you want my support of a green project, show me the economic benefit.

And while we are at it, how about a clear accounting for the economic and environmental cost?

 

[asia53]

Firstly, three things have to be proved for this to rise to the concept of “social injustice”.

1. 
   *]Global warming is really happening.
   *]Global warming is a bad thing.
   *]Global warming is caused by human industrial activity and not part of the observed natural climate cycles.
   Prove ALL of these points, I will give this some consideration. None of these, to date, have been proved, merely asserted based on insufficient data using theories and climate models some of which have been shown to be inaccurate and followed up with wild and questionable speculation.

1. 
   Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

 

[Calliso]

I am familiar with the laundry list of organizations that support AGW. Let me discuss one example I have researched which I suspect reflects what is going on. The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) is one of the scientific organizations Oreskes lists to support her contention. Her paper cites a specific report made by the NAS to substantiate her claim of consensus

This, however, is the opinion of Richard Lindzen, one of the NAS scientists who prepared the report:

*This the full report did {show a span of views}, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them. *

Given that Lindzen wrote his article in 2001 while Oreskes wrote her study in 2004 she should surely have known that what she was claiming for the report was untrue.

And my point was to show how deceptive that particular study was and that the claim of scientific consensus is unsubstantiated.

Ender

Hmmm flawed perhaps but deceptive not so sure. Here is a piece by Lindzen that contains that quote by the way, dotrose.com/misc/lindzen/LindzenWSJ.pdf here is the summary of that report books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

I believe if I remember correctly that she read the abstracts of the reports not the whole things. And while I still need to read the whole report myself…I have seen nothing so far that indicates an actuall outright disagreement with the “concensus” But assuming she just read the summary and did not see Lindzen say what he did in that link above and in a couple other newspapers as well apparently I think we can say her study was far from perfect but intentionally deceptive not so sure. And of course what he says is kinda vague too I mean what were the full range of opinions. But I am going to read that full report myself and see what the full report actually says. When I get back from work!.

 

[PJM]

Global Warming???

**Follow the money **

 

[Valke2]

Regarding political and economic benefits:

It is a virtual certainty that the most violent factions of fundamental islamic extremists receive funding from petrodollars. That is, we pay the money to the Saudis for oil and the Saudis support our worst enemies by bribing them with money. Because of oil and petrodollars, the most violent, smallest percentage of a major religion has hundreds of millions of dollars to spread its message throughout the world.

To fight a way in Iraq which requires us to purchase large amounts of oil just to keep our forces mobile, and which in turn is funding our enemies, is insane.

I believe history will show that falling oil prices had more to do with the fall of the soviet union than anything Regan did. Look what is happening today with Russia and its se of natural resources to advance its political standing in the world.

The sooner we take real steps to become independent from foriegh oil, the sooner we can actually see real progress on the war on terror.

 

[Ender]

Oh, shock of shocks. Back to the same old tripe - which is a neatly disguised racism at its heart.

Did I misquote or misrepresent what Holdren said? I’m sorry, was there a rebuttal there or did you assume that insults are sufficient and refutation is unnecessary? Was that simply the harshest thing you could think of to charge me with (and I do appreciate the “neatly disguised” part)? At least you didn’t call me mistaken; that would have hurt.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Did I misquote or misrepresent what Holdren said? I’m sorry, was there a rebuttal there or did you assume that insults are sufficient and refutation is unnecessary? Was that simply the harshest thing you could think of to charge me with (and I do appreciate the “neatly disguised” part)? At least you didn’t call me mistaken; that would have hurt.

Ender

You misconstrued my comment, which was a bit pithy and short. My apologies; I was referring to the tripe of population reduction. We went down that road decades ago; the liberal pointy heads in acadamia and others who think their stuff doesn’t stink are caught in a time warp; the only mantra they seemingly can come up with is that we have to reduce the population of the Earth because it (Gaia?) can’t survive. I ahve tripped over one or two of these idiot savants, and what they say is so appalling, so out of touch with reality, so far removed from the real world, so racist, so… I am at a loss for words. Literally; as I have no comeback to them except to shake my head in wonder.

And they still walk among us; perhaps the only saving grace, if one there be, is that they are contracepting themselves out of existence; they produce no children, so they can only try to influence the children of others.

I didn’t call you mistaken becuase you were dead square on point. My comments were to Harvard “educated” elites who don’t have the God given sense to sit down, shut up, and let the rest of us get on with the business of life.

As screwy and liberal Oregon is, there are times I thank the good Lord I live here and not on the East Coast with the elitist idiots that seem to populate all too much space back there.

 

[sodak]

that’s fine. But don’t go around blowing smoke up my skirt about only 400 years of science when you are relying on theology.

I’m not relying on theology. And I AM saying that of the
6,000,000,000 years on this planet earth, we only have 200 years (or less) of good, reliable records.

Looks like statistical noise to me. No theology there, just BAD science on the part of global warming alarmists. Maybe we should call it science fiction instead.

 

[Valke2]

You expert opinion aside, the sciene, our government, Europe and the rest of the world disagree.

 

[vz71]

You expert opinion aside, the sciene, our government, Europe and the rest of the world disagree.

I thought we covered this ‘rest of the world’ deception on the last page…oh well, I guess some are simply not reading the thread before posting.

Which rest of the world are you referring to?
Only the ones that believe global warming?
How about the ones that don’t?
Maybe the group that has no knowledge of the issue?

Perhaps you refer to the rest of the world that prefers my mother’s key lime pie??
Mmmmm pie.

 

[Ender]

I believe if I remember correctly that she read the abstracts of the reports not the whole things.

There are two points here - one had to do with all the references she made to organizations that support the “consensus” and the other had to do with the abstracts of scientific papers that she read and categorized. My comments about NAS had to do with the first issue but my initial comments had to do with the way the results of the abstract search were reported (at least by the source you cited.) The abstracts were categorized into one of five groups, two of which were believes the “consensus” and rejects the “consensus”. What was reported, however, were not those results but a percentage based on a combination of “believes” plus two other categories as if that number represented the “believes” group only. As I said, if there really is a consensus why do all these claims fall apart under scrutiny?

Ender

 

[Ender]

You misconstrued my comment, which was a bit pithy and short. My apologies;

Ah, I did misconstrue your comments - my apologies as well.

I was referring to the tripe of population reduction.

The concept may be mindless but the threat posed by those who believe it is real. Population control (and a significant reduction) is the goal of a number of people and main line organizations (and now the White House) who are working very hard to bring it about. In fact, the last thing they want to see is cheap, clean energy since that would not only allow populations to increase but to move even further into areas that are now unpopulated.

The argument, however, has to be made against the scientific claims, not the objectives of its adherents (although it never hurts to point out what their actual goals are).

Ender

 

[a_burger]

How can us Catholics be respected by being followers of Al Gore? We’re supposed to be followers of Jesus. Incidentally the numbers are in and 2008 was the coolest in many years. The "Big Lie’ is dead. We are more in danger of entering another little ice age. Here we are following Al Gore shutting down coal plants and cooling down the earth. We are ambassadors of Jesus Christ and we have an obligation not to make fools of ourselves. Let’s think things through the next time.

Incidentally Al Gore used 20 times the amount of energy of the average home.

 

[Valke2]

How can us Catholics be respected by being followers of Al Gore? We’re supposed to be followers of Jesus. Incidentally the numbers are in and 2008 was the coolest in many years. The "Big Lie’ is dead. We are more in danger of entering another little ice age. Here we are following Al Gore shutting down coal plants and cooling down the earth. We are ambassadors of Jesus Christ and we have an obligation not to make fools of ourselves. Let’s think things through the next time.

Incidentally Al Gore used 20 times the amount of energy of the average home.

umm…

 

[a_burger]

You are more right than you think Agnes Dei. The main thrust behind global warming is abortions. The Catholic church has gotten itself involved with IPCC This is a group of scientists from the UN. The UN would like to kill all Jews including Jesus. It now comes out that we have global cooling which will be brought on even worse by idotic heathen Al Gore. I read years ago that the New World Order would create an enviromental crisis to take control. It’s a hoax. Us APOSTOLIC Catholics should never associate with the UN nor the National Council of Churches. Most are a bunch of churhces that promote homosexuality and abortion. Stand like a rock and remain strong. Remember God sent an ange to Jesus to strenghten him when he was weakened before the Crucifixtion. Join in prayer that he would send the same angel for us.

Don’t believe me. Look at the back of your dollar bill. See the words novus ordo seclorem. That means new world order.