Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

No. You are as wrong as Algore and your credibility is diminishing.

Artic ice has reached a new maximum record level according to NASA.

nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

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.

No again.

What I listed were absurd claims about effects of global warming made by idiots. None have come to fruition and none will.

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.

That’s not saying much about the scientists (?) Algore relied upon. Along with his lies about Polar Bears he is expecting the world to be “burnt to a cinder” next year. I suppose he based that prediction on renowned climate scientists 10 years ago.

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

Our industrial nation WAS a contributor.

Environmentalists are wasting their time preaching the religion of AGW here in the United States. The real culprits (if any) are Russia, China and India.

If you people REALLY believe in your religion…why have you not begun a Missionary program that address this “crisis” at the REAL source???

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.

No. I am proposing that you do something about it and fast. I am proposing that you shut down the industrial output of Russia, China and India ASAP. Then if a slowdown of global warming occurs will will have verifiable proof that AGW is effecting the global climate.

It concerns me when you say that it would be difficult and maybe impossible to reverse global warming. If this catastrophic, man made violation of nature cannot be reversed then you are spinning your wheels. It would be time for you to admit that this has been another environmental hoax.

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.**

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.

Wow!.. That is Scary!..We better increase exploration for oil and gas and begin more fracking so we have the capacity to produce more efficient air conditioning. We will need more fossil fuel produced electrical power (until nuclear is deregulated) if we are to air condition the world.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Lynn,

I correspond with Mann and he is a decent and honest person and has done NO WRONG. These are all manufactured lies and deceits.

…
So just stop it right now!

Maybe we can start with the 112 proxies.

You can find MBH 98 here: meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

The article refers to 112 “indicators” or proxies. Please find where it refers to 159 proxies. I can’t find it. For McIntyre, the 159 came out of the blue via the website of journalist named David Appell, appearing the very next day after the MM article was published in Energy and the Environment. According to Appell on that occasion:

Mann says that the crux of [McIntyre and McKitricks’] error is their use of a Excel dataset with only 112 columns (where each column represents one set of proxy data—tree rings, ice cores, historical temperature data, etc.), when in fact the full paleoclimatic data series requires 159 to be used properly.

[As quoted in The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford, page 95]

It also turned out not to be true that MM used an Excel dataset. The email correspondence between McIntyre and Rutherford (who was tasked by Mann to furnish the data to McIntyre) showed the data was in txt format.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

He may be what you consider as a “good person” but the facts clearly show he’s is a very poor scientist, more interested in sensation than science. The response to his latest paper drives this point home. He missed a career in Public Relations or Advertising.

…

Hey Theo,

Right on, Right on. I am sure he is very cordial if you are of the same tribe. But definitely don’t disagree with him. You might get accused of scientific fraud, or maybe get fired, or even sued.

ferd

 

[Theo520]

It also turned out not to be true that MM used an Excel dataset. The email correspondence between McIntyre and Rutherford (who was tasked by Mann to furnish the data to McIntyre) showed the data was in txt format.

LOL, I’m sure MM had the data in a viable excel or CSV format, but was being an arse and exported/printed it as text. Anything to prevent his work from being checked.

 

[Karen107]

So what type of government do you propose?

What is the plight of the poor actually? Is it lack of education,food ,water,or employment? How does anyone propose you lift the poor out of their situation,more government programs and control?

I believe a certain young man(not yet an adult) organized a group to drill wells for fresh water in one underdeveloped country. He did not even have to condemn capitalism, but worked within the system to see his idea come to fruition.

There will always be the wealthy because those are the ones who usually see a need or want in society and fill it. They profit and invest. Some are unscrupulous and others are not.One cannot just say capitalism is evil or wrong.

Yes one can if it forgets how to care. Everything in life doesn’t have to be black or white and politicized left or right…

 

[Karen107]

No. You are as wrong as Algore and your credibility is diminishing.

Artic ice has reached a new maximum record level according to NASA.

nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

The difference between the artic ice and antartica is that antartica is a land mass covered with snow and ice. So as the snow melts because the air temperature is climbing and winds hit it it creates avalanches which flows into the water creating ice shelves which are expanding outwards. These thin ice shelves are expanding past the land mass but are seen to be disintegrating as it hits the warmer water. That differs from the artic as the artic is made of ice. So it looks like the Antarctic is getting bigger but that’s a misconception of what is really happening.

What’s really happening is the snow and thaw cycles cause the snow and ice to expand outwards to the sea causing a shelf but the surrounding ice shelves are deteriorating due to the warmer southern ocean waters. By looking at what’s happening in the artic shows truly how the ice is melting because its depth and width are being measured giving a more accurate picture of how the glaciers are melting.

skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/collapse-antarcticas-glaciers-ice-melt-sooner-than-thought-scientists-warn

 

[Karen107]

Our industrial nation WAS a contributor.

Environmentalists are wasting their time preaching the religion of AGW here in the United States. The real culprits (if any) are Russia, China and India.
.

Everything I read says US is number one culprit who contributes to global warming and China a distant second. Besides that the US buys a lot of goods from China so are to blame for that as well. We drive the biggest cars (why I think most americans have at least 2 cars), we have the most cows adding methane gases to our atmosphere, on and on…

 

[Karen107]

It concerns me when you say that it would be difficult and maybe impossible to reverse global warming. If this catastrophic, man made violation of nature cannot be reversed then you are spinning your wheels. It would be time for you to admit that this has been another environmental hoax.

What needs to be done is prevention before it’s too late and the damage is irreversible. Surely you’re bright enough to understand that.

 

[Theo520]

Everything I read says US is number one culprit who contributes to global warming and China a distant second. We drive the biggest cars (why I think most americans have at least 2 cars), we have the most cows adding methane gases to our atmosphere, on and on…

Karen, you need to break out of your strawman bubble and join the real world.

China does produce more CO2, and both China and India each have almost double the US population of cows.

 

[Karen107]

Karen, you need to break out of your strawman bubble and join the real world.

China does produce more CO2, and both China and India each have almost double the US population of cows.

Where’s your info that proves that?

 

[utah_rose]

I disagree with that article because I believe it distorts the truth. Global warming is in fact happening. Predictions may not be exact but they are predictions and they have not been wrong. Our world is warming at a very rapid rate. .

skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

I’ll just take one of those myths.From your link…

It appears runaway warming predictions may have been fantasy

While the basic premise of global warming has a solid basis in fundamental physical chemistry – that carbon-containing gases trap sunlight, turning it into heat – a great unknown is how the Earth will respond to this heating by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon. - See more at: dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.29Sn4bFk.dpuf

The truth…
Indicators of a warming world based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere), and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets, rising sea level, and shifting seasons.

The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.

skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Do you know what I believe? I believe that there are many people, and corporations, who do not want us act on climate change because it will affect how they live and their vested interests so they have found ways to sway the public into believing these scientists are wrong and we shouldn’t do anything. Like the agricultural giants who continue to poison our crops with chemicals in order to produce good looking crops and increase production. All the while we’re being poisoned. How can our government let them continue to do this? Because of big money. These issues have become highly politicized to the disrespect of Gods creation.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

I particularly like this paragraph.

Meanwhile the Internet makes it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions—elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations, even National Geographic—served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information with which you already agree.

Are we going to have another Galileo situation on our hands? I see it happening and I’m glad our Church hasn’t fallen into it.

My brother lives near Buffalo. Every time our president speaks about global warming they either have record snowfalls or a deep freeze. Since the weatherman can’t even predict weather correctly, how could they possibly know what it will be even a year from now! Yes, climate always changes but for all we know we may have a coming ice age!

 

[Theo520]

What needs to be done is prevention before it’s too late and the damage is irreversible. Surely you’re bright enough to understand that.

You’ve got to let go of this fantasy that it’s reversible. ** Even the IPCC admits such**

FAQ 12.3: What would Happen to Future Climate if We Stopped Emissions Today?

Even if we stopped all emissions (not possible), they confirm “CO2 would essentially never come back to its preindustrial level on timescales relevant for our society.”

We can reduce and adapt, but we can’t prevent.

 

[Theo520]

Where’s your info that proves that?

You need to know your topic better.
USA a distant 3rd for cow population Simple math indicates Brazil and India are releasing x4 our methane.

Below chart is from the EPA on CO2 emissions by country.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByCountry.png

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Lynn sed earlier: I correspond with Mann and he is a decent and honest person and has done NO WRONG. These are all manufactured lies and deceits.

Next let’s take up his principal components analysis.

One of the problems that vexed McIntyre as he attempted to decipher Mann’s methods was exactly how MBH did their principal components analysis. McIntyre discovered that the standardization method used by Mann was unusual. Instead of standardizing the series data using the mean from the entire series, Mann used the mean from only the 20th Century. [Montford, p. 110]

Lynn, please find where MBH 98 discloses this nonstandard approach? In his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann admits he used it (he calls it “modern centering”).

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Also, where in MBH98 do they disclose they used a “stepwise” procedure in their principal components analysis?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Also of interest is the rule that MBH used to determine which principal components (PCs) will be selected. In this respect MBH does refer to something called “Preisendorfer’s Rule N.” However, this was only with reference to the retention of temperature PCs, not proxy PCs. Montford reports (p. 156):

There was no mention at all of any retention policy for tree ring PC’s. Of course, Mann might well argue that Rule N was used for tree rings too, but his problem here was that there was no sign he had. Wildly different numbers of PCs were being retained in the different PC calculations. For example, Mann had retained two PCs in one of the Vaganov network calculations and nine in one of the Stahle ones. Whatever policy he was using it appeared to be neither rational and consistent and, to this day, it remains one of the unresolved mysteries of MBH98.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

McIntyre* is a fossil fuel industry exec and McKitrick** is an economics prof; they are NOT climate scientists. They didn’t even know they were supposed to use the Kelvin scale instead of the Celsius scale in their statistical analyses.

Sheesh, next y’all be going to barbers for your brain surgery.

…

---

*PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, (1971); B.Sc., Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969)

**M.A., Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, (1990, 1996); B.A., Economics, Queen’s University, (1988).

Hi Lynn,

'Snot true that McIntyre is a fossil fuel industry exec. He’s worked most of his life as a consultant in mineral mining.

But it is true that M and M are not climate scientists. But this fact invites this question: Why did it take two guys outside the field to audit the MBH papers? Why didn’t the climate science establishment do their job? Remember, no one did any real due diligence of the MBH papers, not during peer-review at Nature and not during the IPCC review process.

 

[Karen107]

My brother lives near Buffalo. Every time our president speaks about global warming they either have record snowfalls or a deep freeze. Since the weatherman can’t even predict weather correctly, how could they possibly know what it will be even a year from now! Yes, climate always changes but for all we know we may have a coming ice age!

That’s weather… Why do you think they are having more snow? For the same reason why we are having more inclement weather in Chicago. The waters are warmer causing more evaporation, bringing water aloft and dropping it in the form of snow or rain when it hits a cold front. btw…Climate science is the same as weather forecasting.

 

[Karen107]

You need to know your topic better.
USA a distant 3rd for cow population Simple math indicates Brazil and India are releasing x4 our methane.

Below chart is from the EPA on CO2 emissions by country.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByCountry.png

Ummm. okay well now lets look at the bigger industrialized nations and we see the US rates above India and China in CO2 output per capita. This doesn’t account for the fact that much of our products we buy are from China so we contribute indirectly to the problem that way. I never said the US had more cows btw, it’s that cows are part of the problem along with all the other things we do.,

economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

The biggest absolute emissions come from China, and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 55th, at 6.2 metric tonnes per capita. The US is 8th at 17.6 per capita. India is the third highest country in terms of absolute emissions, but 127th in terms of per capita output with 1.7 metric tonnes per capita.

Now regardless of who’s contributing first or second or third we know that the US is a big contributor to greenhouse gases which is in contrast to what y/all are saying which is that we’ve done all there is to do and the problem is someone elses…Just a look at that chart tells us we have a bad problem here in the US especially since we have far less people than China does.

Our industrial nation WAS a contributor.

Not true

Environmentalists are wasting their time preaching the religion of AGW here in the United States. The real culprits (if any) are Russia, China and India.

By the way Zoltan the environment is not my religion. I’m a Catholic as it says on my profile, who believes that Jesus Christ is my Savior and as such I care for the poor and the suffering in the world and being good stewards of our planet. If that means raising awareness to the problem of AGW than so be it.

 

[Karen107]

You’ve got to let go of this fantasy that it’s reversible. ** Even the IPCC admits such**

FAQ 12.3: What would Happen to Future Climate if We Stopped Emissions Today?

Even if we stopped all emissions (not possible), they confirm “CO2 would essentially never come back to its preindustrial level on timescales relevant for our society.”

We can reduce and adapt, but we can’t prevent.

I never said it was reversable. I said the damage would be irreversable that’s why we must start now to slow global warming. I said this in the context of others who think we should take the wait and see what happens approach. We have a long way to get the technology up to speed on clean energy so we will not emit so many greenhouse gases so we have to start now. It certainly doesn’t help with all the naysayers who say we don’t have a problem or it’s someone elses problem. It’s everyone’s problem, and the IPCC panel and the Pope speaking out on this was a good way to raise that awareness globally.