Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally, there are numerous documented instances of cheating and other bad behavior which prove the IPCC cannot be trusted. The Climategate emails arguably show that IPCC insiders are guilty of journal tampering and of conspiring to violate Freedom of Information Act laws. The emails also contain disturbing evidence of collusion between a journal editor and IPCC insiders. IPCC rules and deadlines are routinely ignored when convenient. Scientific evidence is often misrepresented in reports and evidence has been manufactured.

In sum, the IPCC is a corrupt political enterprise. The Holy Father is gravely wrong in trusting its opinions.
 
Estesbob sed: My reasons for not trusting is every single model and every single prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong .

Karen107 asked: Have they? Like what?

The climate models have done a miserable job in predicting recent temperatures. Maybe only a handful have come even close in predicting the current flatlining of global temps. Here is a graph which illustrates the growing divergence between prediction and reality: drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
Estesbob sed: My reasons for not trusting is every single model and every single prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong .

Karen107 asked: Have they? Like what?

The climate models have done a miserable job in predicting recent temperatures. Maybe only a handful have come even close in predicting the current flatlining of global temps. Here is a graph which illustrates the growing divergence between prediction and reality: drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/.
Click to expand...
Thank you ferdgoodfellow for your excellent posts on this thread! 👍
 
estesbob said:
dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm
Click to expand...
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.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
Estesbob sed: My reasons for not trusting is every single model and every single prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong .

Karen107 asked: Have they? Like what?

The climate models have done a miserable job in** predicting recent temperatures**. Maybe only a handful have come even close in predicting the current flatlining of global temps. Here is a graph which illustrates the growing divergence between prediction and reality: drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/.
Click to expand...
I believe I’ve already answered to this one. Global warming is still on the rise. When you invest in your future do you only think of the short term? No you think of the long term affects.

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.
 
From Nasa. Just one indicator of the change. The prediction is that the weather will become more severe.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes.** In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s.** Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
 
Karen107 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Today I believe there are some 70 different excuses as to why the models have been wrong. And rather than admit that the perhaps their premises were wrong they come up with increasingly bizarre theories as to why even though they’re wrong that means they were right . The fact is there’s been no significant warming on the planet for nearly 20 years. The fact is not a single model Predicted this.

Now we have the claim that the Catholic Church believes in global warming therefore we must all believe it . Which leads to my favorite theory as to why the word is supposedly warming that was posited by another poster _ that is that the increased number of souls being sent to hell because they don’t believe in goal warming is causing volcanoes to spew out more heat which is the cause of AGW . Satan cleverly hides the increase leading to more disbelievers , more souls in hell and more warming. And when Satan quits hiding the increase there is going to hell to pay!
 
Karen107 said:
From Nasa. Just one indicator of the change. The prediction is that the weather will become more severe.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes.** In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s.** Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
Click to expand...
And This is one of the greatest theories of all for the AGW crowd for there’s no way to disprove it. And therefore every time we have severe weather they can jump up on the table and screen AGW !at the top of their lungs . Who knows we may even end up getting storms like this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
In summary: Stewardship of the environment is a moral issue.
Click to expand...
Protecting the environment is an end, an objective, and we do indeed have a moral responsibility to care for the Earth. The means we choose, however, are left to each of us to determine, and there are no moral distinctions here. If I believe X is helpful and Y is harmful then I am morally obligated to support X and oppose Y, and it doesn’t matter if X is fracking and Y is the mitigation of AGW.

The fact that the pope believes carbon dioxide emissions need to be reduced - his chosen means of achieving our shared end - does not mean we must agree with him. We agree on the ends, as we are obligated to do. We disagree on the means, as we are free to do.

Ender
 
Karen107 said:
From Nasa. Just one indicator of the change. The prediction is that the weather will become more severe.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes.** In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s.** Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
Click to expand...
What about early 1900’s, 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s?
One decade? These global warming scientists really like gullible people!
 
7_Sorrows said:
What about early 1900’s, 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s?
One decade? These global warming scientists really like gullible people!
Click to expand...
The last few Hurricane season have been relatively quiet. I am sure, however, that that is somehow related to AGW
 
Karen107 said:
** In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s.** Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
Click to expand...
These are assertions, not facts. You really need to distinguish between the two. Here, for example, is the conclusion of a study on hurricanes done at the University of Illinois U-C:*The authors found that for highly damaging storms, the more feminine the storm’s name, the more people it killed. The team’s analysis suggests that changing a severe hurricane’s name from the masculine “Charley” to the feminine “Eloise” could nearly triple its death toll.
*Has it now been *shown *that naming hurricanes after women will cause more people to die? Here, by the way, is a graph of the power dissipation index of all hurricanes that struck the US since 1900. 2005 was clearly an anomaly, and the long term trend does not at all support the assertion that hurricanes are getting stronger, let alone 25 percent stronger. The assertion is questionable at best; it is anything but shown.



Ender
 
Ender said:
These are assertions, not facts. You really need to distinguish between the two. Here, for example, is the conclusion of a study on hurricanes done at the University of Illinois U-C:*The authors found that for highly damaging storms, the more feminine the storm’s name, the more people it killed. The team’s analysis suggests that changing a severe hurricane’s name from the masculine “Charley” to the feminine “Eloise” could nearly triple its death toll.
*Has it now been *shown *that naming hurricanes after women will cause more people to die? Here, by the way, is a graph of the power dissipation index of all hurricanes that struck the US since 1900. 2005 was clearly an anomaly, and the long term trend does not at all support the assertion that hurricanes are getting stronger, let alone 25 percent stronger. The assertion is questionable at best; it is anything but shown.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pdi-1900-20121.jpg?w=720

Ender
Click to expand...
Thanks for this!!!
 
While Pope Francis is not entirely unfamiliar with the scientific process, he kinda threw in with the majority when he said:
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.
Laudato Si’ ¶23
Click to expand...
The last time the Church sided with “a very solid scientific consensus” (in the early 17th century) it didn’t end well.
 
Ender said:
Protecting the environment is an end, an objective, and we do indeed have a moral responsibility to care for the Earth. The means we choose, however, are left to each of us to determine, and there are no moral distinctions here. If I believe X is helpful and Y is harmful then I am morally obligated to support X and oppose Y, and it doesn’t matter if X is fracking and Y is the mitigation of AGW.

The fact that the pope believes carbon dioxide emissions need to be reduced - his chosen means of achieving our shared end - does not mean we must agree with him. We agree on the ends, as we are obligated to do. We disagree on the means, as we are free to do.

Ender
Click to expand...
That CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment is an indisputable scientific fact.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
That CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment is an indisputable scientific fact.
Click to expand...
I dispute that. CO2 is necessary for plants to live. Less CO2 = less photosynthesis = less plants = less food for animals = less animals. Therefore CO2 is also necessary for animals to live. What is the purpose for the environment but to support the organisms living within it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top