Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karen107 said:
Mainstream scientists came to a concensus with the IPCC on AGW.
Click to expand...
This really isn’t a sufficient response. Either claim X is valid or it isn’t, and claiming “consensus with the IPCC” simply doesn’t address the issue. For example, the IPCC touted Mann’s hockey stick graph yet everyone knows now that that graph was completely bogus, even though it was consensus within the IPCC. Don’t close your eyes to the specific objections being raised.

Ender
 
Ridgerunner said:
Indisputably, it will hurt the poor, and in numerous ways. Cost of heating. Cost of refrigerating food. Cost of air conditioning when it’s hot. Cost of food. Not a single thing the poor need will be unaffected.
Click to expand...
The poor in America aren’t suffering nowhere near they are in third world countries,We should make up for their suffering. but what of those suffering in third world countries? Places were they are not heavy on industry yet they suffer the effects of industry. Is it their problem… What are we so heartless that we only care for our own?
 
Karen107 said:
The poor in America aren’t suffering nowhere near they are in third world countries,We should make up for their suffering. but what of those suffering in third world countries? Places were they are not heavy on industry yet they suffer the effects of industry. Is it their problem… What are we so heartless that we only care for our own?
Click to expand...
And increasing the price of energy helps the poor in Third world countries?
 
estesbob said:
Similarly if "Sandy " had come ashore on a sparsely populated area of the coast nobody would remember it nor would it even have a name .
Click to expand...
I got news for you…TODAY there are many large cities filled with many poor that are living on the coasts… Take for example what happened in New Orleans… Pollution, development and muck coming down from the Mississippi adding to the loss of life and movement of the poor. It wasn’t just those living in NO who suffered… As I mentioned before Louisiana reshaped its lower border due to flooding and erosion and now it’s no longer the shape of a boot… Superstorm Sandy and Louisiana are indicators of rising oceans which will continue to occur and many ocean cities will be affected… Read the paper today and you’ll read about the flooding problem in Miami…Hey I don’t make this stuff up…

.
wired.com/2015/02/rising-sea-levels-already-making-miamis-floods-worse/
 
Karen107 said:
I got news for you…TODAY there are many large cities filled with many poor that are living on the coasts… Take for example what happened in New Orleans… Pollution, development and muck coming down from the Mississippi adding to the loss of life and movement of the poor. It wasn’t just those living in NO who suffered… As I mentioned before Louisiana reshaped its lower border due to flooding and erosion and now it’s no longer the shape of a boot… Superstorm Sandy and Louisiana are indicators of rising oceans which will continue to occur and many ocean cities will be affected… Read the paper today and you’ll read about the flooding problem in Miami…Hey I don’t make this stuff up…

.
wired.com/2015/02/rising-sea-levels-already-making-miamis-floods-worse/
Click to expand...
Except the ocean isn’t rising
 
estesbob said:
And increasing the price of energy helps the poor in Third world countries?
Click to expand...
Yes by lowering the CO2 levels in the atmosphere we will slow global warming and lives will be saved. In addition we’ll have new ways to provide what the poor need in the way of energy, ie, solar and wind, water systems, This is the way of the future… We can’t keep things the way they are, it’s hurting us and them.
 
Ender said:
This really isn’t a sufficient response. Either claim X is valid or it isn’t, and claiming “consensus with the IPCC” simply doesn’t address the issue. For example, the IPCC touted Mann’s hockey stick graph yet everyone knows now that that graph was completely bogus, even though it was consensus within the IPCC. Don’t close your eyes to the specific objections being raised.

Ender
Click to expand...
It’s not based solely on one person or one chart, it’s based on thousands of scientific analyses of data from thousands of scientific sources.
 
lynnvinc said:
Guess what. Climate is the aggregate of weather, and it affects weather. With increasing heat in earth systems from the continually enhancing GH effect, we can expect stronger heat waves, droughts, more deluges and floods (warmer air holds more water vapor, sucking it out of water bodies, plants, and soil), more wild fires, more intense storms & hurricanes (heat energy turning into kinetic energy under certain conditions), increased disease spread into new areas, crop failures, sea rise from warmer sea expansion and melting glaciers.

Sort of like the nightly news these days … which never mentions AGW, bec it is funded by corporate interests that block the complete truth.

Bec so many people here can’t even take the 1st step of accepting that AGW is real, they have absolutely NO IDEA about all the negative impacts from AGW and how these will be affecting them, their children and progeny, and people around the world, esp the poor.

By God’s grace we have a Pope who isn’t afraid to face the truth and speak out.
Click to expand...
👍 agrees!
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
My definition of a political scientist is one who uses a hoax to advance a political agenda

The EPA goes beyond that…it FORCES an environmentalist agenda on people at the point of a gun. The sooner that tyrannical agency is closed down, the sooner America will return to prosperity. Jobs will return from overseas. Employment will soar. and the world will be a better place.
:
Click to expand...
maybe we should go back to not capping off smokestacks in our cities so that all cities can be like Gary used to be… A massive fog of pollutants…
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Jesus did not use scare tactics or doctored data to promote His change.
Click to expand...
I would say He did… He produced miracles which amazed people like putting demons into pigs and rising people from the dead. If that didn’t scare people I don’t know what would. He spoke the truth and I don’t believe the majority of scientists are lying: What I do believe is that people are afraid that self sustainable living and not being reliant on fossil fuels might hurt them in their pocketbooks so are against it. living on fossil fuels… bad bad bad… not leaving our carbon footprints or an enviromental mess for our children to deal with, good good good!
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The trouble with you people who embrace the “religion” of rabid environmentalism is that you actually believe you are right. You consider it justifiable to use questionable data to strengthen your argument. Environmentalist teachers have no shame sending children home in tears when they tell them that baby polar bears will die because their parents drive an SUV. (By the way…how is that polar bear population doing these days?)

:
Click to expand...
I’ve been using data and facts and all I have to prove to you that what the scientist are saying is truth. The problem is you are not convinced. Yes I’ would call myself an environmenatlist. I would say I follow in the way of St. Francis who also cared for Gods creation, what’s wrong with that? St. Francis loved All Gods creations. the earth and the people on it… As for the Polar bears, they were an indicator of the ice melt because they were drowning trying to travel as they once did. As for the Polar bears themselves, they may die, but I am more concerned for people than the polar bears who will die unless we change our ways.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Remember I pointed out before that consensus is not science and science is not consensus.

You can get a consensus amongst a group of witch doctors…but it does not mean they are right. One must provide a **verifiable experiment **proving their point.

Galileo should know.
Click to expand...
Calling the ‘scientists’ witch doctors is not a way to get your point across it just shows bias and immaturity on your part.

Galileo and other scientists were telling the truth, it was the non scientific ones who weren’t believing him. This is no different than this discussion. The scientists have come to a general consensus among themselves and the public is shunning them (just like Galileo)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top