Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[MatthewTrainor]

I’m sorry, but the Pope is right and y’all are wrong. And considering this is a life & death matter, I suggest we listen to the Pope and follow what he suggests to the best of our ability.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

The history of AGW “science” has been one of “hide-the-data” where pro-AGW “scientists” only share their models and raw data with other true believers who swear they will only use said data to parrot the original conclusions. Now after a few decades of that they proudly proclaim “The studies have not been refuted therefore the issue is settled! No more discussion is necessary! We need immediate government action NOW or WE ALL DIE!!!” :bigyikes:

Fortunately the real scientists out there have not been idle. NIPCC

 

[MatthewTrainor]

You don’t get it Gas supplies are lower in summer because of increased demand That drives the price up. That’s economics 101. The same would be true if we were using so called clean energy

Sorry Bob but you can’t convince me that the gas companies don’t price gouge.

Unrestricted price gouging is actually a good thing. The real problem is the government interference in the markets (restrictions on exploration and refinery construction) that keep competition out of the game. Economics is one of those weird things that is so simple it can be hard to understand.

Where Do Prices Come From?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I also blame Americans for some of the pollution and “cancer alleys” in China, since it is emitted in the process of making products for us.

We should be boycotting products from China.

While China has the greatest CO2 emissions, it has 4 times the population of the U.S., so I’m afraid to say but the U.S. greatly surpasses China in per capita emissions…and some of those Chinese emissions are our American emissions to the extent we persist in buying from China.

We don’t have to all live as prisoners in Russian gulags to solve the AGW problem; there are plenty of not-so-drastic measures that will bring about a healthier and freer lifestyle.

So…have China India and Russia reduce their CO2 levels lower than ours…then IF there is a measurable change in global temperature…we can adjust our CO2 thermostat to balance out at an ideal level.

Americans used to be intelligent and creative in solving problems…

Think…

We still are…as evidenced by my “Eastern Hemisphere Solution” above.

A perfect win-win program to end catastrophic climate change. The United States maintains our standard of living and our current industrial capacity while the major contributors to “the problem” reduce their emissions.

As soon as a measurable global temperature reduction takes place (say one or two degrees) We can increase our industrial capacity to level the temperature at the ideal point.

As I see it, once we (the United States) has control of the temperature…we can control the climate and make the world a better place.

 

[sps49]

We’ll see over the years and decades whether robustness in the evidence for these develops, as it has for the basics of AGW and many of its other impacts.

I’m sorry, but the Pope is right and y’all are wrong. And considering this is a life & death matter, I suggest we listen to the Pope and follow what he suggests to the best of our ability.

*Chapter 10, P 873 of “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional”

“Attribution of observed changes is not possible without some kind of model of the relationship between external climate drivers and observable variables. We cannot observe a world in which either anthropogenic or natural forcing is absent, so some kind of model is needed to set up and evaluate quantitative hypotheses: to provide estimates of how we would expect such a world to behave and to respond to anthropogenic and natural forcings (Hegerl and Zwiers, 2011). Models may be very simple, just a set of statistical assumptions, or very complex, complete global climate models: it is not necessary, or possible, for them to be correct in all respects, but they must provide a physically consistent representation of processes and scales relevant to the attribution problem in question.”*

This is an expert judgement, a result of negotiations among the reviewers, and thus subjective. It is a weasel worded paragraph whose only goal is instilling credibility due to the subjective and not objective nature of the conclusion.

It is not at all clear that the Pope is right or wrong about catastrophic AGW; he seems to have punted that opinion back to “consensus science,” and is content to trust the majority. The notion that we will have to wait and see is the only thing about this discussion that we seem to agree upon.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Even scientists agree that peer-review, while a necessary factor in the science being established, is not a sufficient factor. There is a need for many studies supporting a claim – a need for “robustness.” Which has now happened with AGW, after the first 2 studies reached 95% confidence on AGW (.05 on the null) back in 1995. Over the succeeding 20 years there has been tremendous support of many peer-rev studies from all sorts of angles (not just temps and modeling) that have supported AGW. It’s a done deal.

…

You are quite correct that peer-review, by itself, is not a guarantor of good science. After all, the Hockey Stick studies not only passed peer review at the journal level, but also sailed on through the supposed even more rigorous IPCC review process. Normal peer-review is cursory at best, honest scientists admit. Remember, no one even checked Mann’s data from his 1998 paper until 2004. Later, when Steven McIntyre was serving as an expert reviewer for the 4th report, he tried to get access to data from a particular paleoclimate study. He was not only thwarted by the author and the journal itself, he also was told by Susan Solomon, honcho at the IPCC, that he would be fired if he persisted in doing something so basic as auditing the data in aid the IPCC review process.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

… There is a need for many studies supporting a claim – a need for “robustness.” Which has now happened with AGW, after the first 2 studies reached 95% confidence on AGW (.05 on the null) back in 1995. Over the succeeding 20 years there has been tremendous support of many peer-rev studies from all sorts of angles (not just temps and modeling) that have supported AGW. It’s a done deal.

…

Please talk about the studies which contradict the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Have all its predictions come true? Certainly not. What about failed predictions? Don’t they count?

ferd

 

[lynnvinc]

Please talk about the studies which contradict the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Have all its predictions come true? Certainly not. What about failed predictions? Don’t they count?

ferd

They’ve all come true. The warming is very close to what they’ve predicted, and we have more intense hurricanes and storms, greater heat waves, wild fires, floods, droughts, crop failures, disease spread, sea rise, etc.

And there are several things they had not predicted that are happening from AGW as well – increased and lingering Rossby waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

It seems you want blood or something.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They’ve all come true. The warming is very close to what they’ve predicted, and we have more intense hurricanes and storms, greater heat waves, wild fires, floods, droughts, crop failures, disease spread, sea rise, etc.

And there are several things they had not predicted that are happening from AGW as well – increased and lingering Rossby waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

Gee! Why stop there…

1. Study Claims “Global Warming” Will Cause More Rapes
2. “Climate Change” Forces Women into Prostitution
3. Human-Caused “Warming” Lead to Rise of ISIS
4. “Global Warming” to End Civilization
5. “Global Warming” Causes Suicides
6. “Climate Change” Causes Salmonella Poisoning

infowars.com/the-stupidest-things-blamed-on-climate-change/

The world’s most prominent climate scientist, Al Gore, told the children that Polar Bears would drown and become extinct because of global warming. Since his prediction almost 10 years ago…the Polar Bear population is increasing very nicely. But I just don’t see many teachers explaining that to the traumatized kids.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

They’ve all come true. The warming is very close to what they’ve predicted, and we have more intense hurricanes and storms, greater heat waves, wild fires, floods, droughts, crop failures, disease spread, sea rise, etc.

And there are several things they had not predicted that are happening from AGW as well – increased and lingering Rossby waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

It seems you want blood or something.

No, I want intellectual honesty, from you and from your confreres in the climate industrial complex.

Most emphatically, all of the predictions have not come true. The present halt in global temps as measured satellites is Exhibit A. The failure of the hot spot in the tropsoshere in another. So please don’t say “they all have come true.”

 

[Karen107]

Gee! Why stop there…

1. Study Claims “Global Warming” Will Cause More Rapes
2. “Climate Change” Forces Women into Prostitution
3. Human-Caused “Warming” Lead to Rise of ISIS
4. “Global Warming” to End Civilization
5. “Global Warming” Causes Suicides
6. “Climate Change” Causes Salmonella Poisoning

infowars.com/the-stupidest-things-blamed-on-climate-change/

The world’s most prominent climate scientist, Al Gore, told the children that Polar Bears would drown and become extinct because of global warming. Since his prediction almost 10 years ago…the Polar Bear population is increasing very nicely. But I just don’t see many teachers explaining that to the traumatized kids.

First of all the number of Polar bears increasing is very misleading. Due to conservation efforts and awareness of the polar bears people are not hunting Polar bears as they once were in the 60s and 70s so that has caused a ‘temporary’ increase in numbers as the polar bears rebounded. However, as the Artic Ice continues to melt, the number will decline because there will be no more habitat for them.

Those things you’ve listed above have come to fruition and will continue to do so as people migrate our of the rural areas which become unfruitful. So people in drought stricken areas of places like Africa and China have mobilized and having found living in the cities an unfavorable climate with little opportunities for the poor and unskilled, they turn to evil means and people to survive. Our Pope talked about victims of human trafficking which is happening to these people.

When was Al Gore a prominate climate scientist? He’s a politician who relied on the scientists for information on global warming in order to raise awareness of the problem. A problem which is still very much a problem.

You’ve even spoken of it even though you deny that our industrial nation is a contributor.

A perfect win-win program to end catastrophic climate change. The United States maintains our standard of living and our current industrial capacity while the major contributors to “the problem” reduce their emissions.

As soon as a measurable global temperature reduction takes place (say one or two degrees) We can increase our industrial capacity to level the temperature at the ideal point.

But these comments you’ve made are ignorant of the fact that we are already experiencing global warming effects. And it’s one thing to slow down climate change but quite another thing to reverse it. That would be quite difficult if at all possible. You’re proposing that we wait till things get much worse but then it would be too late.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius,** roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.**

As I see it, once we (the United States) has control of the temperature…we can control the climate and make the world a better place.

We do know that our earth is warming at an accelerated rate so there’s no need to wait to start a new plan of action. It is a win win win situation. Clean up the environment for us and our future generations, get rid of reliance on fossil fuels which will run out, and slow the effects of global warming so people can live with the land as God intended.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Lynn and Karen,

But getting back to Mann and the Hockey Team, why haven’t you and the vast majority of the climate science establishment disavowed them and their work? If someone is acting badly and doing rotten science, why not call them on it? Failing to do so damages your credibility.

 

[Karen107]

Unrestricted price gouging is actually a good thing. The real problem is the government interference in the markets (restrictions on exploration and refinery construction) that keep competition out of the game. Economics is one of those weird things that is so simple it can be hard to understand.

Where Do Prices Come From?

There is a BIG problem with Capitalism and this just lays it out… The poor are left out in the cold because of the greed of big corporations who are competing with each other to get the highest dollar instead of consideration of those who cant afford what they have. As a result the wealthy’s wealth goes up up up and the poor are left suffering it’s effects.

 

[Karen107]

They’ve all come true. The warming is very close to what they’ve predicted, and we have more intense hurricanes and storms, greater heat waves, wild fires, floods, droughts, crop failures, disease spread, sea rise, etc.

And there are several things they had not predicted that are happening from AGW as well – increased and lingering Rossby waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

It seems you want blood or something.

Agrees…

 

[Karen107]

Lynn and Karen,

But getting back to Mann and the Hockey Team, why haven’t you and the vast majority of the climate science establishment disavowed them and their work? If someone is acting badly and doing rotten science, why not call them on it? Failing to do so damages your credibility.

Finding some controversy does not make for an entire argument. It just is finding a way to politicize so to ignore the truth so it continues to be brought up in order to discredit the well agreed upon consensus by scientists. Even if you throw Mann out of this discussion climate scientists are agreeing on AGW. The climate myth REALLY is that we are not experiencing the effects of global warming when in fact we are.

Here’s a group who’s mission was to debunk the truth about AGW and they were not able to. 97 percent of scientists agree in AGW.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

A survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

 

[estesbob]

There is a BIG problem with Capitalism and this just lays it out… The poor are left out in the cold because of the greed of big corporations who are competing with each other to get the highest dollar instead of consideration of those who cant afford what they have. As a result the wealthy’s wealth goes up up up and the poor are left suffering it’s effects.

At the roots of nearly all global warming proponents is a dislike of capitalism and support of agressive population control. It’s all political and global warming is just the tool they’re trying to use to push their agenda

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Finding some controversy does not make for an entire argument. It just is finding a way to politicize so to ignore the truth so it continues to be brought up in order to discredit the well agreed upon consensus by scientists. Even if you throw Mann out of this discussion climate scientists are agreeing on AGW. The climate myth REALLY is that we are not experiencing the effects of global warming when in fact we are.
…

It isn’t politicizing an argument to point out that proponents for a scientific theory have acted badly and done rotten science. If you wanted to further your cause, you would admit when your guys are wrong. Why is that so hard?

 

[Karen107]

At the roots of nearly all global warming proponents is a dislike of capitalism and support of agressive population control. It’s all political and global warming is just the tool they’re trying to use to push their agenda

It sure sounds like you’re speaking of the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ who has spoken out against capitalism and I applaud him for that because he knows, as I do, that greed is a motivator and a problem in our world. Well, I don’t believe the Pope is in support of right or left but in support of Jesus Christ who came to save the world… If that means opposing the far right ideologies on capitalism then so be it. Not sure what you mean on agressive population control. The Pope, and our Church is also a pro-life, which is against a lot of far left ideologies. We as Christians are meant to care for the poor, if that means giving up some of the wealth and changing our ways in order to care for them, that’s what will have to happen. Money is something that is meant to be shared because it comes from God and most certainly we can’t take it with us when we go.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

The truth is the Hockey Stick scandal condemns the entire climate science establishment. There were precious few honest brokers who took Mann to task. Muller was one, and he was punished for it. The vast majority were silent or aided and abetted the crime. Stephen Schneider, now deceased, is a good example. Schneider encouraged Mann to stonewall. In his capacity a journal editor, he thwarted McIntyre’s efforts to get data. He broke the rules of his own journal so that a made-to-order study supportive of Mann could get included in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment report.

The IPCC ignored the mountains of evidence amassed by McIntyre and McKitrick. There was collusion between lead authors and outsiders.

To be sure, paleoclimate is just one sub-discipline, but the corruption surrounding the Hockey Stick was pervasive within the entire climate science establishment.

 

[Karen107]

The truth is the Hockey Stick scandal condemns the entire climate science establishment. There were precious few honest brokers who took Mann to task. Muller was one, and he was punished for it. The vast majority were silent or aided and abetted the crime. Stephen Schneider, now deceased, is a good example. Schneider encouraged Mann to stonewall. In his capacity a journal editor, he thwarted McIntyre’s efforts to get data. He broke the rules of his own journal so that a made-to-order study supportive of Mann could get included in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment report.

The IPCC ignored the mountains of evidence amassed by McIntyre and McKitrick. There was collusion between lead authors and outsiders.

To be sure, paleoclimate is just one sub-discipline, but the corruption surrounding the Hockey Stick was pervasive within the entire climate science establishment.

You keep bringing up this because some scientists believed his data wasn’t entirely right on but not that global warming wasn’t happening. We are experiencing global warming confirmed by many many scientists. The entire scientific discussion has been politicized to support people who are denying climate change.

I’ll refer to Lynns because she explains it better from a scientific aspect. I’ve said my thoughts on it up above. One controversy doesn’t undermine all of science.

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 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

 

[Karen107]

The truth is the Hockey Stick scandal condemns the entire climate science establishment.

No it doesn’t. AGW deniers only want it to.