- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
My bad. The devil must have gotten hold of me
It is, however, good to consider how we are tempted into bad (and to be aware of the devil’s wiles). I read in either SPIRITUAL LIFE (a Carmelite magazine) or REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS some decades ago a piece on prayer. The author said we need to pray a lot, etc, but that if we overdo it and pray when we should be doing our duties, we see the tail of the devil. The point being that the devil often uses good things to lure us into bad.
We also discussed in our Carmelite meeting recently who the devil would be going after…and we decided it wouldn’t be the bad people (they are already in his pocket), but the good people, so we (who are striving to be good) have to be extra careful…
Also I read somewhere, maybe the Cure D’Ars, that the only weapon against the devil is humility.
And what is humility, but an honest assessment of our weaknesses and strengths, and a profound understanding that all our strengths and good points are from God, not from ourselves, that without God and His grace we’d be worse than nothing (as St. Teresa pointed out about herself).
I really love the way the popes and bishops have humbly deferred to the climate scientists on the issue of AGW, have not joined in the reckless slander against them, and have instructed us to mitigate AGW out of prudence, even if we are somewhat skeptical.
C
Cristiano
Guest
The same is true for some research that is funded by government agencies. Political agendas in government funded universities can be blatant. Just look at a lot of the so called social studies. The government has always a specific agenda when giving grant money for research, we might agree or disagree with the agenda but that it is the purpose of the grants.
1
1abqdad
Guest
First, let me establish qualifications: Three degrees in Mechanical Engineering. (Graduated TOP in my class each time. Grad School at Stanford) Retired from Sandia National Labs as “Exceptional Contributor”. Specialites in Energy research (Applied mechanics, thermo-fluids, numerical analysis, nuclear, QA, and Engr Management and other areas with 24 NRC certifications.)
The issue here is “MAN MADE”! In other words, is MAN a significant contributor to the problem? Anyone with any chemistry backgound knows that CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2. (Std combustion of methane) No brainer. However, the question is relative to MAN’s contribution. At Sandia Labs, we have been tracking this issue for about 60 years! The simple answer relative to “MAN’s” contribution to “global warming” is that** man does NOT contribute any significant amount**. (This does NOT mean that I support the use of fossil fuels; for I do NOT. The other forms of pollution, air, land, and radioactive releases, are unacceptable.) BUT, man’s contribution is “insignificant” when compared with “natural” sources of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases. We are making the same HUGE mistake here that was made with Ozone (O3) years ago! (Noticed any improvement with the expenditure of TRILLIONS of dollars? NOPE!) The problem is really simple…The average American is NOT well educated in science AND the Media is NOT reliable in the least as it is motivated to lie/distort the truth by its editors for various reasons. (I saw this constantly!)
I tried to work with various news organizations and environmental groups while performing reseach of “national interest”, but it was obvious that they had NO interest in the “TRUTH” but ONLY in promoting their greedy interests. (Which never involved the truth!)
How do you get “the truth”? First, try to educate your self relative to science. (You will NOT get this in the ecology dept.) Find a friend who has a “real” engineering degree (preferrably ME for this type of issue.) and ask him to explain the basic concepts and suggest some books to read. (I do this all of the time.) Second, if it is coming from ANY of the groups that are supported by radical environmentalists, question it. In fact, question ANYTHING of the sort, for most of them are false! People do NOT realize how much money is made by EVIL scientists who will say anything for false, but profitable research! (In the end it is ALL about money! Gore has made MILLIONS off of this scam as has the liars/cheaters who are supporting him. Remember the emails that PROVED that the data was FAKED? Their compliant was NOT that the emails were real, but that they were taken without their approval! (In the emails, the scientists admited to removing ALL data that showed cooling - 50% of the data. This falsification of data was never questioned and of course, Gore’s criminals were never prosecuted! Nothing but lies for money!)
The issue here is “MAN MADE”! In other words, is MAN a significant contributor to the problem? Anyone with any chemistry backgound knows that CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2. (Std combustion of methane) No brainer. However, the question is relative to MAN’s contribution. At Sandia Labs, we have been tracking this issue for about 60 years! The simple answer relative to “MAN’s” contribution to “global warming” is that** man does NOT contribute any significant amount**. (This does NOT mean that I support the use of fossil fuels; for I do NOT. The other forms of pollution, air, land, and radioactive releases, are unacceptable.) BUT, man’s contribution is “insignificant” when compared with “natural” sources of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases. We are making the same HUGE mistake here that was made with Ozone (O3) years ago! (Noticed any improvement with the expenditure of TRILLIONS of dollars? NOPE!) The problem is really simple…The average American is NOT well educated in science AND the Media is NOT reliable in the least as it is motivated to lie/distort the truth by its editors for various reasons. (I saw this constantly!)
I tried to work with various news organizations and environmental groups while performing reseach of “national interest”, but it was obvious that they had NO interest in the “TRUTH” but ONLY in promoting their greedy interests. (Which never involved the truth!)
How do you get “the truth”? First, try to educate your self relative to science. (You will NOT get this in the ecology dept.) Find a friend who has a “real” engineering degree (preferrably ME for this type of issue.) and ask him to explain the basic concepts and suggest some books to read. (I do this all of the time.) Second, if it is coming from ANY of the groups that are supported by radical environmentalists, question it. In fact, question ANYTHING of the sort, for most of them are false! People do NOT realize how much money is made by EVIL scientists who will say anything for false, but profitable research! (In the end it is ALL about money! Gore has made MILLIONS off of this scam as has the liars/cheaters who are supporting him. Remember the emails that PROVED that the data was FAKED? Their compliant was NOT that the emails were real, but that they were taken without their approval! (In the emails, the scientists admited to removing ALL data that showed cooling - 50% of the data. This falsification of data was never questioned and of course, Gore’s criminals were never prosecuted! Nothing but lies for money!)
K
kimmielittle
Guest
One would be wrong
When AGW’ers can’t explain divergences from the AGW hypothesis…The Shell games start.
You REALLY need to step out of excuses of DIVERGENCES from the AGW - CAGW hypothesis… offered by Real Climate - IPCC etc…they are easily debunked as …follow the pea techniques.
AS CO2 INCREASES it drives temperatures upwards - According to the AGW - CAGW hypothesis…NO hiatus…NO flattening…NO decades of lower temperatures …NO Divergences.
To make excuses for Divergences FROM the AGW hypothesis …IS an ADMISSION that something is WRONG with the basic AGW hypothesis. …IT ADMITS CO2 is NOT THE MAIN DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE RISES…If it were the main driver of rising temperatures, NOTHING could make it diverge.
Divergence pea shuffles:
Oh missing heat… it’s hidden in the deep ocean.
It’s Chinas aerosols hiding it.
It should have dropped more. Yours ].
These are dishonest pea shuffles IMO.
They do NOT address the** Divergence Problems**…And Real Climate - IPCC and AGW’ers know it well. They attempt to shuffle the pea…ADMITTING…Observational Empirical Evidence Produces Divergence Problems…and need " The Missing heat is hidden in the deep oceans" - excuses for those divergences.
AN HONEST RESPONSE ASKED FROM YOU A simple yes or no will do ]
Would you need to make excuses - If there wasn’t Divergence Problems?
You admitted to the “flattening”…The fact that you admitted to it - is an admission of Divergence
THAT IS A DIVERGENCE PROBLEM.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12284
THIS IS A DIVERGENCE PROBLEM: It isn’t a question of how much YOU think it should be…After all, you are just a blogger, according to you
].The VERY BIG difference between you and I…I won’t allow them to shuffle the pea.
""In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.”
**REPEATING:
Why is it so hard for you pro AGW people to understand that there is a lag between solar activity, and that you need a prolonged period with lower solar activity for the effect to truly be seen?
During the last decades we have had the strongest solar cycles on average in over 8000 years.
Even the weakest cycles in last decades have been pretty high in activity.
It is only in recent 18 months - 2 yrs ] years that we have entered a deep grand minimum, so you cannot expect an immediate drop in global temperatures. But either way we already see some changes and global temps have started dropping like a rock since this summer.
Some of us who think the Sun is the Main driver… actually predicted the change in weather patterns seen over last years with jet streams moving more south, which is in exact contradiction to what should happen according to AGW theory.
It will probably take another decade before the full effects start to be seen.**
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
Kilbourne
Guest
1abqdad,
Thanks for chiming in. Please elaborate on your scientific reasons for you conclusions re mankind’s contributions to GW.
Being more of a student of human behavior, I am quite familiar with the antics of the climate science establishment, but it would be edifying for us all if you could weigh in on the science.
Kil
Thanks for chiming in. Please elaborate on your scientific reasons for you conclusions re mankind’s contributions to GW.
Being more of a student of human behavior, I am quite familiar with the antics of the climate science establishment, but it would be edifying for us all if you could weigh in on the science.
Kil
K
kimmielittle
Guest
ON Sea Level Rise.
J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Journal of Coastal Research 27 (4), 788-790 (2011).
climatesanity.wordpress.com/critique-of-global-sea-level-linked-to-global-temperature-by-vermeer-and-rahmstor/
On Temperature:
climatesanity.wordpress.com/
On Cosmic Rays: He tagged teamed these guys
In July 2003, astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and geologist Jan Veizer wrote in GSA Today that they had established a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years.
redorbit.com/news/science/58389/role_of_cosmic_rays_in_climate_change_refuted/
Yet, what happened CERN CLOUD
press.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/releases2011/PR15.11E.html
notrickszone.com/2011/12/02/der-spiegel-slams-ipcc-lead-author-rahmstorf-with-piece-titles-scandal-surrounding-german-government-climate-advisor/
Stefan Rahmstorf: Major UN IPCC Climategate Scientist Becomes Joke, Found Guilty By German Court
United Nations IPCC Climategate scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf, found guilty of attacking journalist
No thank you,I graduated from Mr Rahmstorf’s ALARMISM…LONG AGO.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Well Said!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I don’t think that’s the case. I remember when Bush was pres, there were climate scientists claiming AGW was real, despite suffering abuse from gov yo-yos, including the gov striving to muzzle them. (To be fair Bush & Co never claimed AGW was not real, but everyone knew what side of the issue he was on…except perhaps for the really naive types). In fact the gov under Bush rewrote what the scientists had written about AGW, to extremely tone it down – the guy who did it (a drop-out journalism student) I think even got fired for that once the story was out. And I know a NWS hydrologist in the Midwest was fired in the 90s for projecting that AGW could lead to greater flooding in the upper Midwest, and his projections were dead-on…greater flooding did ensue. And I remember reading some anonymous blog posts from junior gov scientists speaking about the “chilling affect,” and how they were afraid to mention climate change – after observing the negative repercussions against senior scientists (with somewhat more secure jobs) who mentioned it, or even reported regular findings.
Here’s something that happened to me. During an environmental club meeting on campus some 5 years ago, I suggested we could show WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? during a tech fair (I was only thinking of the great tech aspects of the film). A sci prof said, “We can show that, we’re funded by xxx, xxx, and xxx [oil and car companies].” So we didn’t show the film. (I hadn’t even thought about the politics aspect of the film, but there are politics there…tho I don’t consider them bad or radical…afterall biz got it’s way against EVs…for the time being).
Later when a soc sci prof was raising a stink about receiving money from the CIA (with no strings attached), I told him I was much more concerned about the influence of big companies on our campus, not gov agencies. My idea was take their money, since “no strings attached.” I told him about the chilling affect that killed showing Who Killed the Electric Car. He got incensed and said, “I guarantee that film will be shown on campus this year.” And it was…hosted by the Peace Club (in the soc sciences).
Do you see what I’m talking about – there is much much more impact both from biz and gov to quash climate science, not to promote it. And don’t tell me the Obama admin is too different. He may be slightly more open to keeping gov science open, but he’s a coal man (you can’t get elected in IL without being a coal man – I used to live there; I know).
As far as gov (and other) grants, here’s how they work. Professors & univ researchers who get them, only get part of their salary offset so they can focus on the research, and also funds for equipment, travel, etc strictly related to carrying out the research. They do not get higher salaries, just their regular salary. There is no gain for them financially. Unlike climate skeptics who get big bucks from Exxon, Koch, etc.
That’s why climate scientists are my heroes. They are doing their work without extra reward, yet they suffer slander, frivolous law suits and prosecutions, death threats, etc. They are truly heroes of our day for sticking it out and doing their important work.
If they dare to speak out, the way Schneider and Hansen have done, they suffer even more abuse, they are extreme super-heroes of our day.
Some scientists just care – about their children, grandchildren, and us. They feel compelled to speak truth to power. That’s more than I can say for the “skeptics,” who would sell us down the river.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I have been involved in writing and reviewing proposals for government grants. The government has always an agenda when distributing funds. University professors have direct and indirect gains from obtaining federal grants. The first immediate direct gain is to pay for summer salaries, the indirect can come from obtaining a tenured position, offsetting the use of funds from foundations that usually do not have the same constraints that federal money has, starting their own company in parallel to the university activity etc.
I agree that some scientist care about their children and grandchildren, it should be that way for all of them. I can also ensure you that most scientists really care about their own egos and that it is why they are in that position to start with. I am not saying that they are bad people, just that they are internally driven.
C
Calliso
Guest
Oh sheesh the email stuff again lol. The scientists were cleared in multiple investigations no evidence of fraud or tampering of data was found. Really though I am guessing this post is just trolling I mean it can;t be serious right? But in case someone takes you seriously here is a couple links I think they should read.
skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm
Well ok that is far more then a couple but it should show that your post is false.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I know about grants – my husband and I just got one. Another agency approached us bec they needed U researchers attached to the grant. We felt we couldn’t turn them down, and also thought to ourselves that they stood a snowball’s chance of getting the grant (many apply, but very few are chosen).
Then unfortunately we got the grant (we both already have tenure, plenty of pubs, and many more in the pipes). And yes, the grant pays for some summer salary (which we already had teaching summer courses), but which is somewhat more lucrative than reg summer teaching. And now we are working our butts off during the reg year (when we are not getting paid) doing what amounts to 2 jobs – the grant work and our reg job (which as it was amounted to 60+ hours a week). We are giving much more work than what we are receiving in payment, and having no days off or vacations – its 24/7 work work work. Sleep? What’s that? Even God rested on the 7th day.
I really feel for those climate scientists, whom I imagine are like us – all work, no play. Plus all they get is contempt and slander from the Exxon/Koch-funded think tanks and general public. There’s no glory, only condemnation in what they are doing. ((Those of us who accept their findings should be sending them gratitude notes to cheer them up.))
We Christians should be so faithful to Christ and his teachings.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
http://www.decodeunicode.org/de/data/glyph/196x196/2260.gif climate scientist
C
Cristiano
Guest
I hear you. A long time ago I started to think of seeking grants as one of the biggest evils that could be cast on a researcher.
Did you know that the Faust is based on the true story of a university researcher that was dealing with proposals for grants?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s greatI hear you. A long time ago I started to think of seeking grants as one of the biggest evils that could be cast on a researcher.
Did you know that the Faust is based on the true story of a university researcher that was dealing with proposals for grants?
I also read many decades ago (at least most of) Kazantzakis’s FRANCIS – and there was this professor in Hell with papers scattered all over smothering him (and other sufferings…can’t remember), and he wanted to get word up to his student not to follow on his terrible fate path.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Name em!
Hankie time!
Provide the claimed death threats. …Isn’t it funny neither the FBI NOR Local Police after investigating… have followed up on these claims?
Cry me a river Mann…poor baby…Bullied people throughout Climategate 1 and 2…AND has sued people…Stefan Rahmstorf Has been found guilty in a court of law…P Glieck admitted Guilt of phishing…Mr Hansen took $720,000 To Politicize Science…
You think it’s bad for them…BUT you’ve dished out a fair share of snide to people who disagree with you.
Mr Mann IMO needs to Mann up…I’ve received hate / slander email From a poster here ]…
Only the ones that say what you want to hear?
I guess it goes to ones moral / ethical / activists compass…
Evidence?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
These Reports are beholding to the taxpayers of USA.
Senate report on CRU
ON CRU IPCC
Senate Minority Report
I wonder why John Cook hasn’t updated these since 2011 …COULD it be Climategate 2 was AFTER these ? ] Investigations?
WE ALL know the inherent problems of investigation / investigating ones own
You could use new material IMO
C
Calliso
Guest
Ok looking at this post I realize it came off as rather harsh. You might not be a troll but calling scientists evil is going rather over board and automatically makes people want to look away. Not to mention the email thing never showed that there was any fraud on the scientists part.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Once again…you way step, over the line.
If you don’t like what, as a Scientist. he wrote…debate him / her in courtesy.
You Ma’am… can not judge who is…or isn’t a climate scientist…Your Hero. Mr Hansen. is an Astronomer…by degree. Mr Schneider was an Mechanical Engineer… by degree. …The VERY DEGREE THIS POSTER HAS:shrug:
This thread is about the “Science” surrounding the AGW - CAGW claims…NOT your Philosophical views. You started a thread for that
]Please debate the Science
- Status