Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Karen107]

And the answer is…flat. Thank you for asking.

Ender

I can tell you that yesterday we had rain, and today, and there was a bit of a chilly breeze but that didn’t mean the ground wasn’t warm. We were out on a lake and the water was warmer than the air. Often times the ground is warmer than the air and when it is saturated it produces fog so the temperature of the atmosphere isn’t always a good indicator of global temperature. Now I visited with some relatives who came up from North Carolina who’ve had a brutal summer of 100 degrees or more and drought like they’ve never seen before.

Look at the chart on the pages again, overall a big warming pattern has happened in the last last 20 years and it is based on the Pacific ocean temperatures, not the Atlantic which is a warmer ocean and that make sense because the Pacific is bigger and deeper and doesn’t have the gulf stream moisture which is giving us the hurricanes and the tornados and storms in the midwest. The problem on the westcoast is record drought. IN places like Texas, OK or Kansas it’s also drought and causing sinkholes due to no integrity of the soil due to lack of rain, fracking and drilling for oil. Do the big business want us to be worried about that? Absolutely not! Because of Greed.

nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Now we can ignore the scientists who have shown us the problem but It’s not us who sit around talking about it who will really will see great effects of climate change, it’s our chlidrens generation and their childrens childrens generation who will see it worse than us…

 

[sps49]

It’s simple. It comes down to simple words because people on this post are ignoring the facts. It’s like the cigarette analogy. Doctors spelled out all the evidence that proved that smoking cigarettes was hazardous to peoples health, but still there remained doctors who presented bias false data to convince the public that cigarettes don’t cause health problems so people would continue to smoke and continue to line the pockets of the Tobacco industry…

That is your opinion, and a rather absurd one given that you don’t know anything other than the assumptions that pro-AGW activists have filled your head with. If I were you I would start looking at things with your own mind. Your bias is so complete that the formula of pro-AGW activism is now more important than any facts, unless they are the “approved” facts.

You claim that people are ignoring the facts, that it is you yourself that is correct. This dualism leads you to “prove” you are right in all of your discussions. It is also a bias that prevents you from considering information that may actually point to a truth, which is a blindness that is crippling.

The evidence is not there yet to support the AGW hysteria side show that is sucking all the air out of the room. Inadequacies with models, knowledge of planetary energy budgets, and an inability to distinguish natural variation from AGW variations are all good enough reasons to demand that the science is cleaned up before mucking with global economies and energy systems.

See how easy that was? I did not have to claim I was right and you are wrong, call you names if you disagreed with me, or question your motives when your answer was different than mine. You should try it sometime, you might find that actually allows you to communicate with other people.

 

[Karen107]

Oh I’m not bias, I propose the skeptics are… I’m following the truth the scientists are telling us based on not a bias but authentic scientific research and analysis. No need for the personal attacks stick to the facts.

 

[Karen107]

That is your opinion, and a rather absurd one given that you don’t know anything other than the assumptions that pro-AGW activists have filled your head with. If I were you I would start looking at things with your own mind. Your bias is so complete that the formula of pro-AGW activism is now more important than any facts, unless they are the “approved” facts. ,

You claim that people are ignoring the facts, that it is you yourself that is correct. This dualism leads you to “prove” you I did not have to claim I was right and you are wrong, call you names if you disagreed with me, or question your motives when your answer was different than mine. You should try it sometime, you might find that actually allows you to communicate with other people./QUOTE . When did I call You names?

 

[sps49]

When did I call You names?

The pejorative “denier” is not conducive to communications. The fact remains that your narrative relies on dualism, making it easy to ascribe motives such as greed, unethical behavior and other negative traits to your opponents, without being burdened to address the central questions about the science. This dualism is a bias that cannot be escaped. The “facts” as you see them, are not the same facts that I see when I read the basic research material. Most of the research are not really facts, but propositions that have a probability assigned to them. There are some basic science theories that have held up well, and numerical values of physical constants that are stable (for the most part), but climate science does not function with an “all things being equal” starting assumption, since all things are most certainly not equal.

 

[Karen107]

The pejorative “denier” is not conducive to communications. The fact remains that your narrative relies on dualism, making it easy to ascribe motives such as greed, unethical behavior and other negative traits to your opponents, without being burdened to address the central questions about the science. This dualism is a bias that cannot be escaped. The “facts” as you see them, are not the same facts that I see when I read the basic research material. Most of the research are not really facts, but propositions that have a probability assigned to them. There are some basic science theories that have held up well, and numerical values of physical constants that are stable (for the most part), but climate science does not function with an “all things being equal” starting assumption, since all things are most certainly not equal.

Sir/ Maam… You’re certainly not an easy person to have debate with. I’m not allowed to say that is your opinion but you are? I’ve said that is your opinion and people are all over that because they say science is not based on opinion as if the scientists didn’t do authentic scientific study before coming to these conclusions. Your way of defending your position is by saying you read basic research material as if the majority scientists who agree about global warming dont. I do believe greed comes into play in this debate as others are saying politics are a part of people believing in global warming. All the Scientists who have a consensus about global warming cannot be 'all considered politically motivated, that’s just an ‘opinion’. Now I’ve given two examples of where the opposers of scientific truths have been politically driven. The case of the agricultural giants given the freedom to poison our food supply with chemicals, and the scientists who have made claim that cigarettes were not hazardous to a persons health. I would hope you could be rational enough to see that it is very probable that the big business in this country such as the auto industry, petroleum and coal industry, silicone industry, plastics industry, would like no more than to keep selling their products to the expense of our environment and our health. If you are offended by me calling people deniers of global warming, than I apologize. That’s how I see it as most scientists do agree in global warming most likely due to man. I NEVER called you personally a name, we’re debating a topic and the term 'denier of global warming is often used for the ones who ‘deny’ global warming…

Do you want to know what doesn’t sound conducive to communications? Statements like this:

You said: That is your opinion, and a rather absurd one given that you don’t know anything other than the assumptions that pro-AGW activists have filled your head with.

The question I have for you is could you see the possibility where big business would not want to change what they are doing in order to lower CO2 and become more environmental minded because they want to protect their interests?

 

[Karen107]

sps… Here’s a report on fracking and it’s harmful effects on us.

environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/costs-fracking

The question then becomes why are corporations doing it with more and more frequency if it causes these problems to us and why is our government allowing it if they are supposed to be protecting us from harm?

 

[estesbob]

sps… Here’s a report on fracking and it’s harmful effects on us.

environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/costs-fracking

The question then becomes why are corporations doing it with more and more frequency if it causes these problems to us and why is our government allowing it if they are supposed to be protecting us from harm?

foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/04/epa-declares-no-widespread-harm-to-drinking-water-from-fracking-boosting/

washingtonexaminer.com/energy-secretary-fracking-is-safe/article/2533758

 

[sps49]

Sir/ Maam… You’re certainly not an easy person to have debate with. I’m not allowed to say that is your opinion but you are? I’ve said that is your opinion and people are all over that because they say science is not based on opinion as if the scientists didn’t do authentic scientific study before coming to these conclusions. Your way of defending your position is by saying you read basic research material as if the majority scientists who agree about global warming dont. I do believe greed comes into play in this debate as others are saying politics are a part of people believing in global warming. All the Scientists who have a consensus about global warming cannot be 'all considered politically motivated, that’s just an ‘opinion’. Now I’ve given two examples of where the opposers of scientific truths have been politically driven. The case of the agricultural giants given the freedom to poison our food supply with chemicals, and the scientists who have made claim that cigarettes were not hazardous to a persons health. I would hope you could be rational enough to see that it is very probable that the big business in this country such as the auto industry, petroleum and coal industry, silicone industry, plastics industry, would like no more than to keep selling their products to the expense of our environment and our health. If you are offended by me calling people deniers of global warming, than I apologize. That’s how I see it as most scientists do agree in global warming most likely due to man. I NEVER called you personally a name, we’re debating a topic and the term 'denier of global warming is often used for the ones who ‘deny’ global warming…

Do you want to know what doesn’t sound conducive to communications? Statements like this:

You said: That is your opinion, and a rather absurd one given that you don’t know anything other than the assumptions that pro-AGW activists have filled your head with.

The question I have for you is could you see the possibility where big business would not want to change what they are doing in order to lower CO2 and become more environmental minded because they want to protect their interests?

The freedom of your opinions is intact, as is evidenced by your many posts. However, other people, including myself are free to disagree with you. I have indeed stated that I have read quite a lot of material regarding climate change; that is how I discover new facts and how to weigh evidence. It has served me quite well in my career.

It is your decision to view my critique as an implication that you and the “majority” of scientists are wrong. However, if you read the black part you will discover that I have said that I disagree with the conclusions, which is not the same thing. Science is not a process of “I’m right and you’re wrong,” or a battlefield of debunking, invalidating, quashing or denigrating. It is a process of determining the likelihood of a particular or group of propositions. I have a choice, I can agree, or disagree because I do not think the authors were convincing, and ask them to revisit the work to improve it. If you have decided to interpret disagreement as a broad-brush attack on the people and scientists who hold that belief, that is your affair. As I have said before, the debate is much more interesting than your dualistic view holds it to be.

Your opinion of tobacco conveniently ignores the fact that as the epidemiology and cell pathology research got better, it became impossible to hide or obscure the facts because everyone now had the ability to see for themselves the clinical effects of smoking due to the improvements in data collection and repeatable science. You also conveniently ignore that for a similar 40 year period, climate science has not improved the uncertainties or repeatability that clinical tobacco use research did.

Feel free to employ rationalizations which you use to justify the use of pejorative terms to describe those whom you disagree with. It reinforces the dualism narrative that sustains your argument, but does not help your credibility.

You keep returning to greed and other nefarious motives as regards CO2 emissions, but your last point is only compelling if one is convinced that the climate system is being effected in a potentially catastrophically way. If you take out CO2, all that is left is the same well-worn complaint about the “big business” entities that I’ve been hearing for years. Color me unconvinced.

 

[sps49]

sps… Here’s a report on fracking and it’s harmful effects on us.

environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/costs-fracking

The question then becomes why are corporations doing it with more and more frequency if it causes these problems to us and why is our government allowing it if they are supposed to be protecting us from harm?

There is a wide disagreement between entities, including the EPA, on the risks associated with fracking. Thus far, the multitude of evils listed on the website you provided have not been confirmed, and their conclusions are not universal.

 

[Karen107]

The freedom of your opinions is intact, as is evidenced by your many posts. However, other people, including myself are free to disagree with you. I have indeed stated that I have read quite a lot of material regarding climate change; that is how I discover new facts and how to weigh evidence. It has served me quite well in my career.

Great, than you have also seen the overwhelming amounts of ‘evidence’ that the scientists have shared which has shown people like me that man has had an impact on climate change. So we’re not really as uneducated on these matters as you portray us to be.

 

[Ender]

That statement is specific to one period of time and doesn’t mean that it isn’t on a warming trend.

I have made a very specific assertion, and for the moment that’s all I wish to discuss. You claimed earlier that global warming was still occurring; I said it was not. To support my contention I have provided citations from two sources, both saying that warming is in fact not occurring at this time. I have drawn no conclusions from that fact, all I have said is that it is indeed a fact that warming is at present not happening.

Read this from YOUR article. We can’t ignore the rest of the article now…

We can ignore any part of the article that is not relevant to the point being discussed: is warming still happening?

Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Yes they have, and those “some” include major scientists who actually support the theory of AGW. These are the scientists who admit there is a concern when their theories cannot account for what is actually happening.

Now read the last two paragraphs. Nothing here about global warming not being a problem it just accounts for the variance in weather patterns.

I didn’t address that issue, and it isn’t relevant to the question of whether warming has (temporarily at least) stopped.

Ender

 

[Karen107]

It is your decision to view my critique as an implication that you and the “majority” of scientists are wrong. However, if you read the black part you will discover that I have said that I disagree with the conclusions, which is not the same thing. Science is not a process of “I’m right and you’re wrong,” or a battlefield of debunking, invalidating, quashing or denigrating. It is a process of determining the likelihood of a particular or group of propositions. I have a choice, I can agree, or disagree because I do not think the authors were convincing, and ask them to revisit the work to improve it. If you have decided to interpret disagreement as a broad-brush attack on the people and scientists who hold that belief, that is your affair. As I have said before, the debate is much more interesting than your dualistic view holds it to be.

So are you saying that you are not convinced at this time or not convinced at all? One would indicate that you are open to the possibility that the scientists are right, the other is you do not believe the scientists are right (a black and white) conclusion.

 

[Karen107]

Your opinion of tobacco conveniently ignores the fact that as the epidemiology and cell pathology research got better, it became impossible to hide or obscure the facts because everyone now had the ability to see for themselves the clinical effects of smoking due to the improvements in data collection and repeatable science. You also conveniently ignore that for a similar 40 year period, climate science has not improved the uncertainties or repeatability that clinical tobacco use research did.

.

No I haven’t ignored anything. I believe climate science HAS improved in the 40 years. I spoke to that before. I said something like in the case of technology advancements are made very quickly and I’ve read that is the same for this climate science. No longer can they just analyze artic ice from the satellite views because that doesn’t give the proper results because the ice may be visibly wider but thinning due to the heat and thaw cycles. That gives it an overall different reading of the total amount of ice. That is just one example.

Why would you claim otherwise? Climate science is not stagnant by any means.

 

[Karen107]

Feel free to employ rationalizations which you use to justify the use of pejorative terms to describe those whom you disagree with. It reinforces the dualism narrative that sustains your argument, but does not help your credibility.

Feel free to try and discredit me but I don’t portray myself to know it all, though I do believe I have a great deal of common sense and I’m not unintelligent.

 

[Karen107]

You keep returning to greed and other nefarious motives as regards CO2 emissions, but your last point is only compelling if one is convinced that the climate system is being effected in a potentially catastrophically way. If you take out CO2, all that is left is the same well-worn complaint about the “big business” entities that I’ve been hearing for years. Color me unconvinced.

Well I do believe that there is a big self interest factor in convincing the public saying there isn’t a big problem when there is. I see the same arguments (which I do not submit to) that are coming from the far right and I know there are Catholics who are far right who never think that anyone can agree with something that our present leftist government is saying. Now I’ve listened to Fox TV and know that they are far right/conservative and I don’t agree with many things they say. I’ve heard the arguments on here being repeated. For example which I have heard here: That we are motivated into our beliefs in order to do something for the animals which are becoming extinct. This is not about saving the animals, this is about saving us, That’s not saying I’m leftist, but I do believe that’s why people are saying those who believe in MMGW are motivated by politics, because THEY are motivated by politics and the self interest groups have influenced them in some way. This country has become so divided that the truth is being lost. I’m motivated by neither politics or big business. I am motivated by the truth.

 

[Karen107]

There is a wide disagreement between entities, including the EPA, on the risks associated with fracking. Thus far, the multitude of evils listed on the website you provided have not been confirmed, and their conclusions are not universal.

So are you saying fracking isn’t a dangerous practice? What do you base your premise on?

Here’s another article on it.

cleanwateraction.org/page/fracking-dangers

We have an beautiful nature area called Starved Rock that has some of the most unique rock formations which is very close to an area where they’ve been fracking the soil and leaving huge craters. This is not far from Chicago so it’s a place where people go to get away from the rat race and be with nature. The company who is doing this fracking has bought up farmlands and there are only a few houses left sort of like an island so they have to move too. What is the price for all this? We don’t have very many places like this in Illinois and what they are doing will forever scar the little remaining places we have making them unfit for people to live.

Read this article.

articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-08/business/ct-sand-mine-fight-0608-biz-20140608_1_sand-mine-lasalle-county-starved-rock-state-park

 

[sps49]

Great, than you have also seen the overwhelming amounts of ‘evidence’ that the scientists have shared which has shown people like me that man has had an impact on climate change. So we’re not really as uneducated on these matters as you portray us to be.

As I mentioned before, when you consider the definition of “overwhelming” it is a bit contradictory that AGW requires consensus messaging. Had it been “overwhelming,” there would have been essentially no disagreement due to, well, the “overwhelming” nature of it. I have stated before, the attribution argument is still very much in play, so we really do not know with any certainty what parts natural variation and the effects of man are on the climate. There are of course claims that man is negatively affecting the climate, but those claims are uncertain at best, and not too plausible.

I see you are still employing dualism to reinforce your belief argument. My disagreeing with your beliefs does not say you are uneducated, it says I disagree with you. That is a reasonable approach, as opposed to my saying you are wrong and uneducated, which would be an unreasonable approach. In truth, the only person who can effectively say anything about your education is yourself, because only you have the ability to make a change in it, should you find a reason to.

 

[sps49]

So are you saying that you are not convinced at this time or not convinced at all? One would indicate that you are open to the possibility that the scientists are right, the other is you do not believe the scientists are right (a black and white) conclusion.

Since I have not claimed to be prescient, omnipotent or otherwise all-knowing, I would say that the reasonable answer is that I am not at this time convinced. Your conclusion is not what I would characterize it to be. Since I am not at this time convinced, there is an opening where at some time in the future when the evidence is clear, the uncertainties are lower, the science is objective and repeatable vs subjective and speculative, I could see a case where the evidence is convincing. But that has nothing to do with the scientists being “right,” since I’ve already explained to you that it doesn’t work this way.

 

[sps49]

No I haven’t ignored anything. I believe climate science HAS improved in the 40 years. I spoke to that before. I said something like in the case of technology advancements are made very quickly and I’ve read that is the same for this climate science. No longer can they just analyze artic ice from the satellite views because that doesn’t give the proper results because the ice may be visibly wider but thinning due to the heat and thaw cycles. That gives it an overall different reading of the total amount of ice. That is just one example.

Why would you claim otherwise? Climate science is not stagnant by any means.

Saying that the technology/instrumentation is better is not the same thing as saying the science is “right” about it. The planetary climate system is a difficult, if not impossible at this time, physical system to simulate. Advancements have been made, but the learning curve is steep with problems like this, where almost no closed form analytical solutions exist. Much work still needs to be done. It is not a poor reflection on science that it has not yet “solved” this, just that it is a difficult problem. It is a poor reflection on science when unsubstantiated claims are made for political purposes.

Your expectations of what constitutes “stagnancy” may need revision; some problems take a very long time, and progress may seem stagnant, but it is always incremental. Your characterization of my comment to mean “stagnant” are unfounded and reactionary.