Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Ender]

Now they can actually attribute such things as particular droughts, heat waves, and floods to AGW at 95% confidence.

“They” also had a 95% confidence level that warming would not stop for 15 years, which it clearly has. The confidence levels they assign to their own predictions don’t instill much confidence.

So do y’all just want to wait it out with your heads buried in the sand before turning off lights not in use, etc.?

There can be no greater example of ignoring the truth than to believe that your actions, or mine, or all of ours, can have any effect at all. Worse still is the belief that there is a cheap fix to this “problem”. There is no method of reducing CO2 emissions by any significant amount that will not be horribly expensive. You can argue that the fix is worth the expense, but it is irrational to believe the cost will be reasonable.

I really can’t figure you people out, why you would want things to continue to get worse and worse for the next 20 years…

You refuse to accept that people oppose your position because they reject the scientific claims made about AGW. Apparently you find it easier to believe that they are simply evil and “want things to continue to get worse and worse.”

Ender

 

[sps49]

Now they can actually attribute such things as particular droughts, heat waves, and floods to AGW at 95% confidence.

Since there are no good observations/information on atmospheric or oceanic circulation prior to 1950, one wonders what they are comparing to make such an attribution statement.

One does not have to needlessly wonder for too long, because the answer is observations since 1950 (mostly since 1979), and climate models. That is similar to stacking the deck in favor of your hypothesis, so I have little confidence with their claims.

 

[lynnvinc]

“They” also had a 95% confidence level that warming would not stop for 15 years, which it clearly has. The confidence levels they assign to their own predictions don’t instill much confidence.

Bec it has NOT stopped and has NOT gone back to pre-70s levels. Scientists never ever claimed it would be a strictly increasing phenomenon, since they well know there are other factors that impact climate, and they have always said it take decades of evidence…which is why it took them so long to establish that AGW was happening in the first place. See graph below…one would have expected them to have reached sci certainty about AGW in the mid 80s if they had not needed so much evidence, but it took until 1995 for the 1st studies to find AGW at 95% confidence (.05 on the null).

Furthermore despite 1998 being an unusually hot year (due to a extreme el nino, which itself may have been enhanced by AGW), the temps on the whole have continued to increase, with 2014 being the hottest year yet and 2015 on track to be even hotter. You cannot say that is a flatline over the past 30 years. see graph.

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2015/01/Global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980.png

Check out how the globally average temps fluctuate year to year, and also how the 5 years running average even fluctuates up & down.

It is not the way they do science – except for some uninformed, less educated weathermen – to pick the start year at 1998 (an unusually hot year due to the el nino), then compare succeeding years.

And Pope Francis, who does have good background in science, does understand that, so he is not bamboozled they way you all are by the oil-funded deceitful CC denial industry.

Here is a graph that controls for el nino, neutral, and la nina years, and all the lines are tilted upward:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/JohnN-G_ENSO_trends.gif

There can be no greater example of ignoring the truth than to believe that your actions, or mine, or all of ours, can have any effect at all. Worse still is the belief that there is a cheap fix to this “problem”. There is no method of reducing CO2 emissions by any significant amount that will not be horribly expensive…

Of course, if I act alone, it would be like spitting in the ocean, and that’s why Pope Francis is calling on all of us to act.

Like you, I didn’t imagine we could reduce our GHGs without sacrifice. That was 25 years ago. But my husband, like y’all, did not want to sacrifice, so he basically said we could do only those things that didn’t cost much. Well, it turns out over 25 years we have found many measures that either don’t cost or don’t require much effort, and many that save money right away or in the short- or long- run. The only thing I can think that cost more is buying organic food (when available)…but when you consider the great savings of $1000s from our other measures, then we can well afford that extra cost.

We lowered our GHG emissions and concomitant pollution by about a third thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation, and then more than another third by going on alt energy. If we weren’t so lazy and busy we’d be doing much more, but I figure so far we’ve reduced down to 60% or more lower than our 1990 emissions. (And I’m not counting that we’ve been living within 1 or 2 miles of work and shops for the past 46 years of our marriage…which we did to help save finite resources for future generations.)

Now I truly believe more than I even had before, if you seek first the kingdom of God and its righteous (and are not afraid to follow Popes Francis, BXVI, and JPII in this), all things will be added unto you.

I suggest starting with just some small measures that save, then you can plow that money into larger measures, etc.

 

[cjforJesus]

Bec it has NOT stopped and has NOT gone back to pre-70s levels. Scientists never ever claimed it would be a strictly increasing phenomenon, since they well know there are other factors that impact climate, and they have always said it take decades of evidence…which is why it took them so long to establish that AGW was happening in the first place. See graph below…one would have expected them to have reached sci certainty about AGW in the mid 80s if they had not needed so much evidence, but it took until 1995 for the 1st studies to find AGW at 95% confidence (.05 on the null).

Furthermore despite 1998 being an unusually hot year (due to a extreme el nino, which itself may have been enhanced by AGW), the temps on the whole have continued to increase, with 2014 being the hottest year yet and 2015 on track to be even hotter. You cannot say that is a flatline over the past 30 years. see graph.

Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions

Check out how the globally average temps fluctuate year to year, and also how the 5 years running average even fluctuates up & down.

It is not the way they do science – except for some uninformed, less educated weathermen – to pick the start year at 1998 (an unusually hot year due to the el nino), then compare succeeding years.

And Pope Francis, who does have good background in science, does understand that, so he is not bamboozled they way you all are by the oil-funded deceitful CC denial industry.

Here is a graph that controls for el nino, neutral, and la nina years, and all the lines are tilted upward:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/JohnN-G_ENSO_trends.gif

Of course, if I act alone, it would be like spitting in the ocean, and that’s why Pope Francis is calling on all of us to act.

Like you, I didn’t imagine we could reduce our GHGs without sacrifice. That was 25 years ago. But my husband, like y’all, did not want to sacrifice, so he basically said we could do only those things that didn’t cost much. Well, it turns out over 25 years we have found many measures that either don’t cost or don’t require much effort, and many that save money right away or in the short- or long- run. The only thing I can think that cost more is buying organic food (when available)…but when you consider the great savings of $1000s from our other measures, then we can well afford that extra cost.

We lowered our GHG emissions and concomitant pollution by about a third thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation, and then more than another third by going on alt energy. If we weren’t so lazy and busy we’d be doing much more, but I figure so far we’ve reduced down to 60% or more lower than our 1990 emissions. (And I’m not counting that we’ve been living within 1 or 2 miles of work and shops for the past 46 years of our marriage…which we did to help save finite resources for future generations.)

Now I truly believe more than I even had before, if you seek first the kingdom of God and its righteous (and are not afraid to follow Popes Francis, BXVI, and JPII in this), all things will be added unto you.

I suggest starting with just some small measures that save, then you can plow that money into larger measures, etc.

What you are doing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference.It may make you feel better and that you are “seeking the Kingdom” but Jesus said His Kingdom is NOT of this world. At the end the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll and a new heaven and new earth filled with righteousness will appear. We are too far gone, and as Mary at La sallette said"The abyss is opening and antichrist with his subjects will soon appear.

 

[Andre1000]

Yes.

Uh-oh, here we go again… As a scientist who understands the basic physics behind it, I would have to say it’s a sure thing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is to say it absorbs and emits infrared light in a way that tends to warm the planet’s surface. That’s just physics. Sensible people can argue over how much heat the CO2 keeps in, or other factors like the greenhouse effect of water vapor, cooling and warming due to cloud coverage, CO2 emissions of volcanoes, solar output variation, effects of other industrial emissions like soot, methane, etc., but I don’t think anyone has come up with a scientific argument that our massive CO2 emissions are going to make the planet any cooler. And so what if there are other factors that we do not fully understand or have control over? That is a poor argument for inaction with respect to the factors that we do understand and have control over.

One could argue that the CO2 is insignificant for the current global warming and that it is a natural global warming that has little to do with our CO2. In fact we see that the temperature started climbing before the CO2 emissions really started and by the current knowledge of the periodical changes of warm and cold periods, a warm period was overdue. Of curse this could also mean that we now have a combination of a natural and artificial global warming, which nasa actually does.

 

[Andre1000]

I don’t know where you got the idea that I wasn’t taking action to protect the environment. P I am disappointed that we wasting trillions of dollars chasing this myth down that could be spent much better on real threats to the environment . Do you have any idea how much help the $500 million given to Solyndra would have been to Third World countries trying to provide clean drinking water for their citizens ? Don’t you believe the money wasted giving credits to people to put windmills in their yards and drive electric cars could have been much better used fighting deforestation ?

And what worse is that this money doesn’t actually help reducing the CO2 output much, instead they invent such nonsense like this Emissions trading that obvious did not help at all and only gave more money to the stock exchange.

In a reasonable world, humans would just discover a problem and the just solve it. Finish.

 

[lynnvinc]

One could argue that the CO2 is insignificant for the current global warming and that it is a natural global warming that has little to do with our CO2. In fact we see that the temperature started climbing before the CO2 emissions really started and by the current knowledge of the periodical changes of warm and cold periods, a warm period was overdue. Of curse this could also mean that we now have a combination of a natural and artificial global warming, which nasa actually does.

That’s not the case this time (CO2 trailing the warming), but it has been in past great warmings…which points out a very important factor that could spell great trouble for this warming episode.

Warming (whatever its cause – GHGs, orbital shifts, etc) melts ocean hydrates and permafrost, releasing vast quantities of CH4 (which degrades into CO2 in about 10 years) and CO2, which then cause greater warming, which then causes greater melting, causing greater warming, and so on. It’s sometimes referred to as the “methane shotgun hypothesis,” and scientists say our “methane shotgun” is loaded much more than in the past…so we could be looking at GW going way out of control, IF we refuse to mitigate this before it wakes the “sleeping methane dragon.” Already CH4 release from melting hydrates and permafrost is on the increase…

Another point is that just because warming can cause greater GHGs to go into the atmosphere in NO WAY disproves that GHGs cause warming.

 

[Ender]

Bec it has NOT stopped and has NOT gone back to pre-70s levels.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the zealotry of the true believer than the unwillingness to admit that the atmosphere has not warmed in over 15 years. This is simply not in dispute, at least not by the scientists who have access to the data.*So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. … Temperatures have remained virtually constant for over a decade and a half. *(Hans von Storch, 2014)

Scientists never ever claimed it would be a strictly increasing phenomenon…

This is your own invention; no one has suggested otherwise.

… they well know there are other factors that impact climate, and they have always said it take decades of evidence…

This is simply not true. It is flatly contradicted by what the scientists themselves have been saying.*We’re facing a puzzle. …In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero. **This is a serious scientific problem. ***(Von Storch)

… it took until 1995 for the 1st studies to find AGW at 95% confidence (.05 on the null).

And yet they were still wrong. The climate has refused to act according to their predictions. Apparently the climate is no more impressed with that claim than we are.

Furthermore despite 1998 being an unusually hot year (due to a extreme el nino, which itself may have been enhanced by AGW), the temps on the whole have continued to increase, with 2014 being the hottest year yet and 2015 on track to be even hotter. You cannot say that is a flatline over the past 30 years.

I think the fact that you keep inventing arguments to refute rather than refuting the arguments that are actually being made indicates the precariousness of your position. No one ever said warming has stopped for 30 years; we have been very specific about this. The hiatus is 18 years, and the scientists recognize the seriousness of the pause for their most basic assumptions.*If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. *(Von Storch)

It is not the way they do science – except for some uninformed, less educated weathermen – to pick the start year at 1998 (an unusually hot year due to the el nino), then compare succeeding years.

True enough, but this accusation simply means you haven’t examined the data that has been presented. The hiatus actually goes back to December of 1996. That is, even *including *the “unusually hot year” of 1998, the average temperature over the last 18+ years is still flat.

And Pope Francis, who does have good background in science, does understand that, so he is not bamboozled they way you all are by the oil-funded deceitful CC denial industry.

Ah, the dreaded boogey-man argument.

Well, it turns out over 25 years we have found many measures that either don’t cost or don’t require much effort, and many that save money right away or in the short- or long- run.

What you can do in your own home bears no relation to what the government would have to do. There is no free lunch at that level. The cost of replacing existing CO2 generating power plants with alternative devices would be staggering. We’re not talking about turning your thermostats down, that would be at the level of turning them off.

I suggest starting with just some small measures that save, then you can plow that money into larger measures, etc.

You might as well plow your money into your garden for all the good it will do.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

What you are doing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference.It may make you feel better and that you are “seeking the Kingdom” but Jesus said His Kingdom is NOT of this world. At the end the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll and a new heaven and new earth filled with righteousness will appear. We are too far gone, and as Mary at La sallette said"The abyss is opening and antichrist with his subjects will soon appear.

I had to check and see if you were Catholic or an “End-Timer.”

---

Here’s what Pope Francis has to say in Laudato Si:

1. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”. For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.
2. … Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
3. Climate change is a global problem with serious implications, environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods; it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. …. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.
4. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms…
5. … We must maintain with clarity an awareness that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States Bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”. We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
6. … There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.
7. … With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.

---

What I usually point out to “End-Timers” – and they seem to respond much better than Catholic CC denialists – is that yes, the world might even end today, but we would not want to end up going down to that much hotter place for all eternity bec we failed to do right while we had the chance on Earth, but contributed to wrong instead.

 

[lynnvinc]

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the zealotry of the true believer than the unwillingness to admit that the atmosphere has not warmed in over 15 years. This is simply not in dispute

Who is claiming it has been warming significantly within the past 15 years. That is a non-starter. We can see by the graphs and data that altho is has been warming slightly on average, this is not “significant” warming. That in no way at all disproves AGW.

What you are failing to grasp is that there are other factors impacting climate. This is not a lab experiment in which you can control for all factors expect the two of research interest (the cause & effect).

Because this is NOT a lab experiment they need a lot more data over many decades, not just 2. They need to look at the overall picture and consider all the factors.

So far evidence for AGW, from thermometer data AND from other types of data, has become more and more robust over the decades, based on a very good theory that goes back some 200 years and well explains difference btw Venus, Earth, and Mars.

IF AGW had “stopped” as you say, then the global average temps would have gone back to pre-1980s temp, which they have not. And it is not at all strange that temps over the past 16 years (1998 to 2014) have leveled off a bit, esp when factoring in the 1998 extreme el nino warming. IF this trend were to continue for 15 more years and/or temps were to drop below 1980s levels, then they would have to figure out what’s going on and perhaps come up with a new physics, since the GH effect theory is based on physics.

One thing we can do to factor out those other non-GHG factors that are impacting climate is control for el nino, neutral, and la nina years, pointing out the impact of the Pinatubo volcano. That gives us a clearer picture of the impact of GHGs – see graph below:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/JohnN-G_ENSO_trends.gif

 

[cjforJesus]

I had to check and see if you were Catholic or an “End-Timer.”

---

Here’s what Pope Francis has to say in Laudato Si:

1. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”. For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.
2. … Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
3. Climate change is a global problem with serious implications, environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods; it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. …. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.
4. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms…
5. … We must maintain with clarity an awareness that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States Bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”. We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
6. … There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.
7. … With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.

---

What I usually point out to “End-Timers” – and they seem to respond much better than Catholic CC denialists – is that yes, the world might even end today, but we would not want to end up going down to that much hotter place for all eternity bec we failed to do right while we had the chance on Earth, but contributed to wrong instead.

Global warming is a myth created by the united nations.
Sorry,but our time is running out and it has nothing to do with global warming. Reducing greenhouse gases,LOL! You really think that is going to stop hunger in third world countries? You are truly in denial. Increasing energy costs will only trickle down and cause increase in all goods.

The American economy thrives on overconsumption BTW. Everyone seems to want the best and newest electronic devices.

Pope Francis is truly speaking from his heart but it is by no means ex cathedra or infallible.If he believes that our earth is doomed because CO2 emissions then that is his personal belief.It is not binding on the faithful or part of the deposit of faith to believe CO2 gases will cause the demise of man. Everything we need to know for salvation has already been revealed. There are no secrets.

I also believe St John Paul 2 and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI adhered to the belief of macroevolution.That too is not binding on the faithful.

I certainly hope you are not implying that God is going to send to hell those who do not believe in AGW! There will be a lot of good scientists down there,lol.

 

[Ender]

Who is claiming it has been warming significantly within the past 15 years. That is a non-starter.

Once again you have had to change the actual claim before you can respond to it. I didn’t say you claimed there has been significant warming, only that you persist in claiming that warming continues.

We can see by the graphs and data that altho is has been warming slightly on average, this is not “significant” warming.

No, the data do not show warming. As von Storch said, warming over the last 15 years has amounted to 0.06 degrees - “a value very close to zero” - which is within the margin of error and is not statistically significant.

That in no way at all disproves AGW.

This is your problem, and why you have been so reluctant to admit what is so clearly true that “climate change seems to be taking a break”: you fear that by admitting it it will decidedly damage the argument in favor of AGW. Of course it doesn’t disprove AGW. It does, however, present “a serious scientific problem.”

Because this is NOT a lab experiment they need a lot more data over many decades, not just 2.

You are refuted by your own scientists.*A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. *(von Storch)

IF AGW had “stopped” as you say, then the global average temps would have gone back to pre-1980s temp, which they have not.

If your car stops going forward does it automatically go back where it came from, or does it remain where it is?

IF this trend were to continue for 15 more years and/or temps were to drop below 1980s levels, then they would have to figure out what’s going on and perhaps come up with a new physics, since the GH effect theory is based on physics.

A physics which at this point may include fundamental errors.*If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. *(von Storch)
Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Global warming is a myth created by the united nations…

Actually you are on to something re conspiracy theories, but here is the real conspiracy theory (taken from another thread post of mine):

It was a complex plot right from the beginning that would have taken beings with supercomputer intelligence to come up with, starting well before the time when the Dominators contracted with bin Laden to attack us, leading to grossly enhanced security measures and detracting our attention from anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also causing (or giving pretexts for) extremely expensive wars, throwing our economy into a tailspin, further detracting from AGW concerns.

Have you noticed how they are taking rights away from those who are least likely to believe in climate change denialist conspiracy theories & most likely to vote for politicians concerned about AGW. Check out the Constitution-free zone:

THE CONSTITUTION-FREE ZONE (compare it to red &blue voting maps)



Well, little by little obscure, arcane laws are being put in place that on the face seem reasonable security and economic measures, but one day people living within 100 miles of the coasts and borders will wake up to find themselves disenfranchised (i.e., mainly the people not buying into the climate change denialist or Agenda 21 conspiracy theories). Ostensibly this is for security measures and to ensure bitumen tar sands economic prosperity and fracking happiness to all. Who are these “Dominators,” you ask, who are spinning lies that AGW is a hoax and mitigating it will harm not help people? Just see how utterly effective they are in “Climate of Doubt” at pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Well, eventually the denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out the Dominators have also betrayed them when global climate reaches some 3C warming around 2075 or so, when they can no longer brain-wash the gullible public into denying AGW bec the Cat 5 hurricanes are whirling around the Arctic while Cat 7 hurricanes are bashing our coasts and our crops have totally failed due to the super heat-spells, droughts, wildfires, and Noah-type floods. These denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out too late their free trip to a terraformed Mars promised by the Dominators was not actually in the works or even in the plans.

So as we head into a runaway scenario, the Dominator supercomputer robot/androids from Area 51, who look exactly like humans, will “decommission” the denialist powers-that-be and take over the oil companies and government with look-alikes (some have already been taken over), and start implementing their plans to turn all that decomposing biota (us) into oil for their fuel. Eventually when earth turns into another Venus with 480C temps and these robots are all melted into nothing, then the Zorks from Planet Gork (who created and sent the Dominators to Earth) will have the last laugh at having destroyed a potential enemy (us), since Earthlings were becoming a bit too sophisticated in their technology and space endeavors, but apparently not in their gullibility for climate denialist conspiracy theories.

The end…to all life on earth sadly ever after.

 

[cjforJesus]

Actually you are on to something re conspiracy theories, but here is the real conspiracy theory (taken from another thread post of mine):

It was a complex plot right from the beginning that would have taken beings with supercomputer intelligence to come up with, starting well before the time when the Dominators contracted with bin Laden to attack us, leading to grossly enhanced security measures and detracting our attention from anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also causing (or giving pretexts for) extremely expensive wars, throwing our economy into a tailspin, further detracting from AGW concerns.

Have you noticed how they are taking rights away from those who are least likely to believe in climate change denialist conspiracy theories & most likely to vote for politicians concerned about AGW. Check out the Constitution-free zone:

THE CONSTITUTION-FREE ZONE (compare it to red &blue voting maps)

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/Image-Map.gif

Well, little by little obscure, arcane laws are being put in place that on the face seem reasonable security and economic measures, but one day people living within 100 miles of the coasts and borders will wake up to find themselves disenfranchised (i.e., mainly the people not buying into the climate change denialist or Agenda 21 conspiracy theories). Ostensibly this is for security measures and to ensure bitumen tar sands economic prosperity and fracking happiness to all. Who are these “Dominators,” you ask, who are spinning lies that AGW is a hoax and mitigating it will harm not help people? Just see how utterly effective they are in “Climate of Doubt” at pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Well, eventually the denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out the Dominators have also betrayed them when global climate reaches some 3C warming around 2075 or so, when they can no longer brain-wash the gullible public into denying AGW bec the Cat 5 hurricanes are whirling around the Arctic while Cat 7 hurricanes are bashing our coasts and our crops have totally failed due to the super heat-spells, droughts, wildfires, and Noah-type floods. These denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out too late their free trip to a terraformed Mars promised by the Dominators was not actually in the works or even in the plans.

So as we head into a runaway scenario, the Dominator supercomputer robot/androids from Area 51, who look exactly like humans, will “decommission” the denialist powers-that-be and take over the oil companies and government with look-alikes (some have already been taken over), and start implementing their plans to turn all that decomposing biota (us) into oil for their fuel. Eventually when earth turns into another Venus with 480C temps and these robots are all melted into nothing, then the Zorks from Planet Gork (who created and sent the Dominators to Earth) will have the last laugh at having destroyed a potential enemy (us), since Earthlings were becoming a bit too sophisticated in their technology and space endeavors, but apparently not in their gullibility for climate denialist conspiracy theories.

The end…to all life on earth sadly ever after.

AGW is a myth and it is not binding on any Catholic to believe that exhaling will cause all of us to die and the earth along with us. Plants love CO2,maybe we should plant more trees!

 

[cjforJesus]

appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

I thought this was interesting,at least what I could understand of it. Anyone else care to comment or elaborate on this theory?

 

[Karen107]

I don’t know where you got the idea that I wasn’t taking action to protect the environment. P I am disappointed that we wasting trillions of dollars chasing this myth down that could be spent much better on real threats to the environment . Do you have any idea how much help the $500 million given to Solyndra would have been to Third World countries trying to provide clean drinking water for their citizens ? Don’t you believe the money wasted giving credits to people to put windmills in their yards and drive electric cars could have been much better used fighting deforestation ?

Do you know how much Solyndra has advanced technology in solar power? It revolutionized it despite the opposition from the republicans.

npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

And I already mentioned before how we need to bring clean energy such as solar power to third world countries who can’t afford to pay for fossil fuel technology. We also need to teach them about how to deliver clean water so they won’t be dying from what they drink and they have water to drink.

Chinese proverb goes like this… If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime. We have to do something besides just giving them money, we have to get them to live in a more self-sustained way and clean energy is the way.

 

[estesbob]

Do you know how much Solyndra has advanced technology in solar power? It revolutionized it despite the opposition from the republicans.

npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

And I already mentioned before how we need to bring clean energy such as solar power to third world countries who can’t afford to pay for fossil fuel technology. We also need to teach them about how to deliver clean water so they won’t be dying from what they drink and they have water to drink.

Chinese proverb goes like this… If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime. We have to do something besides just giving them money, we have to get them to live in a more self-sustained way and clean energy is the way.

Sondra went bankrupt.I guess on the Left that counts as success

 

[sps49]

appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

I thought this was interesting,at least what I could understand of it. Anyone else care to comment or elaborate on this theory?

Attribution is just as difficult for individual natural variation effects as it is for man made effects. There is currently a lot of interest in solar indirect effects, and other mechanisms that have no direct connection with the atmosphere, but it will most likely take years or decades to establish cause and effect.

 

[lynnvinc]

AGW is a myth and it is not binding on any Catholic …

As the conspiracy theory creators from Planet Gork would have us believe

 

[Karen107]

Sondra went bankrupt.I guess on the Left that counts as success

So did a lot of companies that doesnt mean they didn’t contribute something to the world.

Here more info on what’s become of Solyndra funding… Some failures some HUGE successes

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra