Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[lynnvinc]

The Left? Is this about politics? I thought we were talking about the Pope and AGM?

It’s business. The Government lent money to Solyndra and other companies which kickstarted investments into alternative energy and that’s grown exponentially as the wave of the future… Bob, I think I’d invest in alternate energy if I were you…

So what you in fact are saying is that you are driven by party politics rather than what the scientists are saying… Am I right?

I don’t believe the Pope is driven by politics… I believe he’s driven by Jesus Christ and the truth…

Yes, let’s get back on topic. Lots of people have been raving about how the Pope is dead wrong…that somehow they are much smarter and more educated and “in the know” than the Pope.

For my part, I feel vindicated by Laudato Si from all the decades of banging my head against the brick wall of resistance and indifference to environmental problems. Every word in it is very precious and worthy of our attention and consideration. There is nothing in it at all which contradicts science, faith, or morals, or what the other popes (JPII and BXVI) and the U.S. Bishops have been saying all along for over 25 years.

My impression is there are some American Catholics who have been getting off track for the past 3 decades, sort of forming their own religion and world closed off from reality re their anti-environmentalism. They are the ones totally stunned by LS, probably bec they haven’t been paying much attention to what the previous popes and the U.S. Bishops have been saying. And have not been reading the science journals.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Lynn,

We can talk about “hide the decline” if you want, but what about their obvious conspiracies to violate FOIA laws and tamper with journals?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You have NO IDEA of which you are speaking re “climategate.” “Hide the decline” was about the decline in the tree ring proxy data (which denialists hate so much anyway) – for which I think I might have an answer* – which did not jive with the more accurate instrumental data, which showed an increase in temps. The “trick” referred to the method used to splice those two data sets (proxy and instrumental) together – not at all to some trick to deceive the public, for heaven’s sake.

Hide the decline was actually another conspiracy with roots going back before the 2001 IPCC report. In preparation for the commencement of the review process, a bunch of scientists, including Mann, attended a meeting somewhere in Africa. After that meeting a guy named Holland? sent an email to some of the participants regarding the vexing divergence between reconstructions from tree rings and thermometer temps in recent decades. This posed a problem because paleoclimate studies depend heavily on tree rings for their temperature reconstructions. The divergence problem cast doubt on their use tree rings. If tree rings don’t correlate well with modern temps, whey are we so sure they did in the past?

The conspirators wanted to put a graph in the next IPCC report which showed multiple reconstructions, including one from Keith Briffa which showed the decline. The climagegate emails show they discussed various ways to manipulate the graphs “to hide the decline.” They eventually opted to truncate Briffa’s data. Initially Briffa resisted the drive to “present a nice tidy story,” but eventually capitulated under pressure from Mann, Jones, et al.

Jones then went even further. In the cover of an AMS publication he actually seamlessly spliced the measured temps onto Briffa’s graph.

Richard Muller, a California physicist and someone who tried to be an honest broker despite his support for the carbon dioxide theory of climate change, took them all to task. There is a youtube video where he is speaking about this. The gist: what they did was dishonest. Let the data speak for themselves. Real scientists don’t hide data. He then said he now knows whose papers he will never read. Can’t trust em.

 

[estesbob]

The Left? Is this about politics? I thought we were talking about the Pope and AGM?

It’s business. The Government lent money to Solyndra and other companies which kickstarted investments into alternative energy and that’s grown exponentially as the wave of the future… Bob, I think I’d invest in alternate energy if I were you…

So what you in fact are saying is that you are driven by party politics rather than what the scientists are saying… Am I right?

I don’t believe the Pope is driven by politics… I believe he’s driven by Jesus Christ and the truth…

Of course it’s about politics .The left seized upon this flawed theory to demand the implementation of the same far left agenda they have been pushing for for over a century More govt regulations.more taxes.The Pope,btw, rejected this approach.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, let’s get back on topic. Lots of people have been raving about how the Pope is dead wrong…that somehow they are much smarter and more educated and “in the know” than the Pope.

For my part, I feel vindicated by Laudato Si from all the decades of banging my head against the brick wall of resistance and indifference to environmental problems. Every word in it is very precious and worthy of our attention and consideration. There is nothing in it at all which contradicts science, faith, or morals, or what the other popes (JPII and BXVI) and the U.S. Bishops have been saying all along for over 25 years.

My impression is there are some American Catholics who have been getting off track for the past 3 decades, sort of forming their own religion and world closed off from reality re their anti-environmentalism. They are the ones totally stunned by LS, probably bec they haven’t been paying much attention to what the previous popes and the U.S. Bishops have been saying. And have not been reading the science journals.

Neither the Pope nor the Bishops support the radical agenda proposed by AGW proponents.The Pope calls upon us to protect the environment.Nothing new there. The p
Problem is those who would twist his words to promote their
Left wing agenda

 

[Karen107]

Neither the Pope nor the Bishops support the radical agenda proposed by AGW proponents.The Pope calls upon us to protect the environment.Nothing new there. The p
Problem is those who would twist his words to promote their
Left wing agenda

The problem is that party politics have gotten in the way of listening and believing in what the scientists are telling us. Its not surprising that most of the republicans do not believe in AGW. They fear for corporate America and the interest groups they are being fed by. So it’s about the money to them. But party politics aside, we must get to the bottom of it because our future is at stake. Besides even though there is a great percentage of republicans who deny AGW not all of the republicans are rejecting it. Just look to republican John McCain who said this:climatequotes.wordpress.com/politicians/john-mccain/

“The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.” – Boston Globe op-ed with Lieberman

“Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming.”

“On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor’s center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.“Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.

“In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies, more forest fires than in previous decades, changes in crop production, more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms.

“To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem — with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion.

---

Now here’s an article from the Washington Post about the increase in forest fires. They site global warming as a cause. Note: no party politics here, just basic the basic facts to why this is happening.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/30/western-wildfires-are-getting-worse-why-is

 

[Karen107]

There is more than enough fossil fuel to keep us going.

There isn’t evidence of that. Our fossil fuels are at a peak now because we are getting oil from domestic sources but there is no evidence that we will not be on a decline and wont run out and our oil comsumption increases with more people, more cars, etc. Europe is already feeling the pinch.

 

[estesbob]

There isn’t evidence of that. Our fossil fuels are at a peak now because we are getting oil from domestic sources but there is no evidence that we will not be on a decline and wont run out and our oil comsumption increases with more people, more cars, etc. Europe is already feeling the pinch.

Our proven reserves are greater today than they were 40 years ago.

 

[Karen107]

Our proven reserves are greater today than they were 40 years ago.

Of course because technology and domestic oil has improved the numbers. That doesn’t mean isn’t going to tap out or become more costly to extract.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Of course because technology and domestic oil has improved the numbers. That doesn’t mean isn’t going to tap out or become more costly to extract.

Hi Karen,

So we shouldn’t exploit a resource because it is finite? Dat dunna make no sense!

 

[estesbob]

Of course because technology and domestic oil has improved the numbers. That doesn’t mean isn’t going to tap out or become more costly to extract.

WE have more than adequate fossil fuel for the foreseeable future. No reason to panic,no need to impose massive new tax and regulation schemes.

 

[Ender]

There is nothing in it at all which contradicts science, faith, or morals, or what the other popes (JPII and BXVI) and the U.S. Bishops have been saying all along for over 25 years.

More to the point, there is nothing in it that contributes anything to our understanding of the science involved. If the science wasn’t settled before it is no way settled now. There is no more reason to believe AGW now than there was before. If a concern was valid before it is equally valid now. Nothing in LS changed that.

Ender

 

[sps49]

More to the point, there is nothing in it that contributes anything to our understanding of the science involved. If the science wasn’t settled before it is no way settled now. There is no more reason to believe AGW now than there was before. If a concern was valid before it is equally valid now. Nothing in LS changed that.

Ender

The only thing that has changed is that there are now some people who have and will use LS to compel people to believe via in-group pressure. For some, the science is secondary to the ideology.

 

[Ender]

Now here’s an article from the Washington Post about the increase in forest fires. They site global warming as a cause. Note: no party politics here, just basic the basic facts to why this is happening.

Suppose I was to cite an article by Fox News. Would you be equally willing to assume “no party politics here, just the basic facts”? Let’s not pretend WaPo is any less politically motivated.

Distrusting the source, however, is not a valid reason for ignoring its comments, so let’s look at what the article said.*Are wildfires in the Western United States getting bigger and more severe? There’s a fair bit of evidence that yes, they have been.
*We can start by recognizing that even they don’t claim the problem actually exists, only that there is evidence that it may. *Thanks to both climate change and shifting forestry practices, humans may bear some responsibility here.
*Once again, the assertion is only that climate change *may *be responsible, not that it is. They then provided a helpful chart to show how wildfires have been increasing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...lein/files/2012/06/fires-increasing.jpg&w=480

Note the large increase between 2001 and 2009. Now ask yourself: how can the increase in wildfires be due to increased air temperatures over that period when the temperatures did not in fact increase?

Also note that the article identified three possible culprits: warmer air (global warming), sprawl (more people building in wilderness areas), and changing forestry practices, which they said “***have **made wildfires more destructive.” *About the first two contributors the most they could say was that they *appear *to contribute.

All in all, even your source does not make the claims you made: they did not say that global warming has caused an increase in forest fires. I think, though, that what has been shown here is a tendency on your part to conflate possibilities with demonstrated facts. The article said “may have caused”. What you understood was “unbiased proof”, and neither of those words is accurate.

Ender

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The problem is that party politics have gotten in the way of listening and believing in what the scientists are telling us. Its not surprising that most of the republicans do not believe in AGW. They fear for corporate America and the interest groups they are being fed by. So it’s about the money to them. But party politics aside, we must get to the bottom of it because our future is at stake. Besides even though there is a great percentage of republicans who deny AGW not all of the republicans are rejecting it. Just look to republican John McCain who said this:climatequotes.wordpress.com/politicians/john-mccain/

“The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.” – Boston Globe op-ed with Lieberman

“Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming.”

“On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor’s center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.“Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.

“In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies, more forest fires than in previous decades, changes in crop production, more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms.

“To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem — with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion.

---

Now here’s an article from the Washington Post about the increase in forest fires. They site global warming as a cause. Note: no party politics here, just basic the basic facts to why this is happening.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/30/western-wildfires-are-getting-worse-why-is

This is the stuff that deepens my skepticism.

Environmentalists who embrace the “religion” of “Global Climate Change” should be working “overtime” to force China to reduce it’s carbon foot print. China is building coal fired power plants while the EPA is regulating ours out of business.

If environmentalists REALLY believed that man made CO2 was remotely responsible for a climate change they would be conducting demonstrations, applying political pressure, and organizing economic blockades against China.

BUT…

All the articles, all the speeches, all the pseudo-scientific papers…all blame the United States, our industries, our life style, and, of course… Capitalism.

What do these anti-Americans want…the destruction of America or a utopian man controlled global climate?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

You are right and I apologize for demeaning self respecting witch doctors.

After reviewing the absurd predictions made by the alarmist scientists from the United Nations as well as the great universities…predictions that never came true…I realize that I offended witch doctors.

In fact if a witch doctor wearing a lab coat, a bone in his nose, and carrying a rattle, were to speak before the U.N. Climate Summit and state that the Earth is warming and there is not much we can do about it…he would have more credibility than all the computer models put together.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hi Lynn,

We can talk about “hide the decline” if you want, but what about their obvious conspiracies to violate FOIA laws and tamper with journals?

non-starters.

For conspiracy theories go back to my Planet Gork conspiracy…that’s much more likely than 1000s of scientists being in some conspiracy. Plus I know those scientists and have been in contact with them AND trust them a lot more than bloggers who might even be working for oil interests, as far as I know. I do know there is a huge oil & coal funded CC denialist industry out there –

check out desmogblog.com/ for individual perpetrators and their funding;

check out skepticalscience.com/ for answers to the deceitful henchmen’s non-science (nonsense) arguments that may look like science to the uninformed;

check out www.realclimate.org for more scientific type of responses to the evil nonsense, and you can even email the scientists and ask them if you still have doubts and questions…they’ll answer if your questions are sincere

 

[sps49]

non-starters.

For conspiracy theories go back to my Planet Gork conspiracy…that’s much more likely than 1000s of scientists being in some conspiracy. Plus I know those scientists and have been in contact with them AND trust them a lot more than bloggers who might even be working for oil interests, as far as I know. I do know there is a huge oil & coal funded CC denialist industry out there –

check out desmogblog.com/ for individual perpetrators and their funding;

check out skepticalscience.com/ for answers to the deceitful henchmen’s non-science (nonsense) arguments that may look like science to the uninformed;

check out www.realclimate.org for more scientific type of responses to the evil nonsense, and you can even email the scientists and ask them if you still have doubts and questions…they’ll answer if your questions are sincere

You do much better (IMO) when you reference research publications instead of the usual collection of pernicious radical pro-AGW echo-chamber websites.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hide the decline was actually another conspiracy with roots going back before the 2001 IPCC report. In preparation for the commencement of the review process, a bunch of scientists, including Mann, attended a meeting somewhere in Africa. After that meeting a guy named Holland? sent an email to some of the participants regarding the vexing divergence between reconstructions from tree rings and thermometer temps in recent decades. This posed a problem because paleoclimate studies depend heavily on tree rings for their temperature reconstructions. The divergence problem cast doubt on their use tree rings. If tree rings don’t correlate well with modern temps, whey are we so sure they did in the past?

The conspirators wanted to put a graph in the next IPCC report which showed multiple reconstructions, including one from Keith Briffa which showed the decline. The climagegate emails show they discussed various ways to manipulate the graphs “to hide the decline.” They eventually opted to truncate Briffa’s data. Initially Briffa resisted the drive to “present a nice tidy story,” but eventually capitulated under pressure from Mann, Jones, et al.

You’re just barking up a totally irrelevant tree, posing a big fat red herring and kicking a dead horse, since we can totally skip all of Mann’s studies and it won’t do squat to undermine the tremendous evidence that AGW is happening. I’m not saying Mann was wrong. You and your nefarious sources are the ones who are dead wrong. But we really don’t need Mann’s work to prove AGW.

Proxy data is never quite as good as instrumental data – they only use it (after mashing it up with instrumental data for a validity check) bec they don’t have instrumental data for those earlier time periods. Furthermore all the other non-tree-ring proxies match up well enough, and as mentioned (you didn’t read my entire post), there may be good reasons why trees are not doing as well during this period of greenhouse effect induced global warming – AGW may be negatively impacting them.

Mann’s studies came out in the late 1990s & early 2000s, but climate scientist had already proven AGW a 95% confidence well before that (.05 on the null). And since his studies there have been numerous other studies from all sorts of angles supporting AGW, so that now the evidence is quite “robust.”

The gist: what they did was dishonest. Let the data speak for themselves. Real scientists don’t hide data. He then said he now knows whose papers he will never read. Can’t trust em.

The gist is Mann did not explain in the graph itself that these were 2 spliced datasets; however, he did do that in his paper associated with the graph. (Problem: people are too lazy to read.) He has since recognized that he made a mistake in not putting that info in a footnote to his graph.

But for heaven’s sake, he replaced the proxy data in the more recent decades with more accurate instrumental data. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, and people are just plain crazy or on some weird mission against life on earth not to recognize that.

Here is a graph of several proxies – they are not exact replicas of each other, but scientists do the best they can with the information they can extract from the proxies. And the do a lot of very hard work, and do NOT deserve to be abused and slandered by y’all, or harassed by or receive death threats from AGW denialists on an evil mission that contradicts what the Pope is asking of us.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hockey_League_spaghetti.gif

 

[lynnvinc]

You do much better (IMO) when you reference research publications instead of the usual collection of pernicious radical pro-AGW echo-chamber websites.

None of these is “pernicious radical,” but based on solid research and investigations into financing, etc.

As for RealClimate, that is run by top climate scientists who felt there were so many deceitful arguments out there in public that the peer-review process, which takes a long time, couldn’t handle in a timely fashion (not to mention people generally don’t read peer-reviewed science), so they created a blog. You can also contact the scientists directly, or post questions there.

Furthermore, you are perfectly free to read science journal articles re AGW, which is what I’ve been doing for the past 25 years. Science, Nature, etc. No one is preventing you. I know they are difficult for laypersons to understand, even the abstracts are often difficult to understand, but well worth the effort of reading them.

This is why reports like the IPCC are so valuable, bec they summarize the research and present it in a way that is more comprehensible to the public. But don’t stop with the IPCC, go to the articles they cite and learn it first hand; IPCC is a great source for many studies.

There is a war going on between the forces of life and good and the forces of death and evil on this issue of environmental harms. Please read Laudato Si; that is essential.

As for me and my household we choose life and good. I’d hope more Catholics would do the same, not just follow the easy way and what sounds pleasant to them.