Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
What is “bad stewardship”?

I think we are doing pretty good. The rain forests are growing back at record rates, there is no more SMOG, and the Polar Bear population is increasing.
Click to expand...
Look up the garbage patches in the oceans which grows bigger daily - - the pacific has one the size of Texas and there are many more in other oceans - yep were really good stewards

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

I can give more example of poor stewardship - very easy to do.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
Laudato Si identifies climate change as an environmental problem that demands immediate action. Pope Francis believes that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming or climate change. Is he justified in this belief?
Click to expand...
Totally. I just amazes me how so many people here think they are so much smarter and better informed than Pope Francis, who has background in science and has been into AGW for a long time and concerned about its harmful effects esp on the poor of the world.

They are informed and influenced by the “devoil” powers that be and their multi-million dollar climate change denialist industry, which roars so much louder than scientists working hard out there in the lab or the field.

I hate to say this but it seems to me that maybe they are being deceived willingly. I hope not. I hope is it just their naivety and lack of awareness. I’d hate to think the “Cain” factor of our human nature is playing an ugly role in it.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
That CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment is an indisputable scientific fact.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons why this is not an “indisputable scientific fact.” Chief among them is our current inability to assign natural and man made variations an attribution percentage that is robust enough to discern the two effects. A lot of work remains before any certainty is possible, beyond the usual shrieking “It’s CO2! It’s CO2! It’s CO2!”
 
7_Sorrows said:
Who are the people suffering from climate change?
Click to expand...
You could read Laudato Si to find out, or here is some info I have on hand:

“Report: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030” usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

And the report to which it refers: “Climate Vulnerability Monitor” at daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/
Some quotes:
“THE MAIN FINDING OF THIS REPORT IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALREADY HELD BACK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: IT IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE WORLD ECONOMY, WHILE INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE CONSIDERED A LEADING GLOBAL CAUSE OF DEATH.”

& “Climate change is already with us. It kills. It steals livelihoods. And it takes the most from those who have the least. But the costs are largely hidden from our understanding. Inaction on climate change actually takes from us all…”

One needs to consider the victims of bodily and property harm now and into the future (since a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years) of the plethora of effects from climate change: heatwaves, droughts, floods, increased intensity of storms & hurricanes, wildfires, sea rise, disease spread, harm to food productivity from these, etc.

For instance it is estimated that half of the heat-related deaths (or 35,000 deaths) in Europe in the summer of 2003 can be attributed to AGW. WHO estimates that 150,000 people each year die from disease spread due to AGW.* If you calculate all the deaths, harms, and property damage from AGW, it would be staggering. “Attribution science” is improving all the time, and is finding AGW implicated in more and more harms.

So then the question is how many people am I personally responsible for killing from AGW effects. Well, maybe for a typical American it only comes to one person from a lifetime of a person’s industrial GHG emissions (note we are NOT counting breathing here, since emissions from that are much needed by plants). Maybe some here would be okay with that, thinking I’m only killing one person, but I’m not okay with it. And, of course, we can’t really calculate the exact number, since some of our emissions will be there in the atmosphere for many 1000s of years. So it might be each typical American is responsible for the death of, say, 10 people (or more) with a 1000 year time frame.

This simply a matter of Catholic “faith and morals,” it’s a matter of violating one of the 10 Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” which can be found in nearly all religions.
See chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-infectious-disease
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/en/
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/whoconferenceonhealthandclimatechangefinalreport.pdf?ua=1

“Already, climate change is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from changing patterns of disease, weather events, such as heat-waves and floods, and degradation of water supplies, sanitation, and agriculture, according to the latest WHO data. Children, women and the poor are among those most vulnerable to climate-related impacts and consequent diseases, such as malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition.”
 
lynnvinc said:
You could read Laudato Si to find out, or here is some info I have on hand:

“Report: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030” usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

And the report to which it refers: “Climate Vulnerability Monitor” at daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/
Some quotes:
“THE MAIN FINDING OF THIS REPORT IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALREADY HELD BACK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: IT IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE WORLD ECONOMY, WHILE INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE CONSIDERED A LEADING GLOBAL CAUSE OF DEATH.”

& “Climate change is already with us. It kills. It steals livelihoods. And it takes the most from those who have the least. But the costs are largely hidden from our understanding. Inaction on climate change actually takes from us all…”

One needs to consider the victims of bodily and property harm now and into the future (since a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years) of the plethora of effects from climate change: heatwaves, droughts, floods, increased intensity of storms & hurricanes, wildfires, sea rise, disease spread, harm to food productivity from these, etc.

For instance it is estimated that half of the heat-related deaths (or 35,000 deaths) in Europe in the summer of 2003 can be attributed to AGW. WHO estimates that 150,000 people each year die from disease spread due to AGW.* If you calculate all the deaths, harms, and property damage from AGW, it would be staggering. “Attribution science” is improving all the time, and is finding AGW implicated in more and more harms.

So then the question is how many people am I personally responsible for killing from AGW effects. Well, maybe for a typical American it only comes to one person from a lifetime of a person’s industrial GHG emissions (note we are NOT counting breathing here, since emissions from that are much needed by plants). Maybe some here would be okay with that, thinking I’m only killing one person, but I’m not okay with it. And, of course, we can’t really calculate the exact number, since some of our emissions will be there in the atmosphere for many 1000s of years. So it might be each typical American is responsible for the death of, say, 10 people (or more) with a 1000 year time frame.

This simply a matter of Catholic “faith and morals,” it’s a matter of violating one of the 10 Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” which can be found in nearly all religions.
See chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-infectious-disease
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/en/
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/whoconferenceonhealthandclimatechangefinalreport.pdf?ua=1

“Already, climate change is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from changing patterns of disease, weather events, such as heat-waves and floods, and degradation of water supplies, sanitation, and agriculture, according to the latest WHO data. Children, women and the poor are among those most vulnerable to climate-related impacts and consequent diseases, such as malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition.”
Click to expand...
Given their track record why should we accept any of these wild predictions?
 
lynnvinc said:
You could read Laudato Si to find out, or here is some info I have on hand:

“Report: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030” usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

And the report to which it refers: “Climate Vulnerability Monitor” at daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/
Some quotes:
“THE MAIN FINDING OF THIS REPORT IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALREADY HELD BACK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: IT IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE WORLD ECONOMY, WHILE INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE CONSIDERED A LEADING GLOBAL CAUSE OF DEATH.”

& “Climate change is already with us. It kills. It steals livelihoods. And it takes the most from those who have the least. But the costs are largely hidden from our understanding. Inaction on climate change actually takes from us all…”

One needs to consider the victims of bodily and property harm now and into the future (since a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years) of the plethora of effects from climate change: heatwaves, droughts, floods, increased intensity of storms & hurricanes, wildfires, sea rise, disease spread, harm to food productivity from these, etc.

For instance it is estimated that half of the heat-related deaths (or 35,000 deaths) in Europe in the summer of 2003 can be attributed to AGW. WHO estimates that 150,000 people each year die from disease spread due to AGW.* If you calculate all the deaths, harms, and property damage from AGW, it would be staggering. “Attribution science” is improving all the time, and is finding AGW implicated in more and more harms.

So then the question is how many people am I personally responsible for killing from AGW effects. Well, maybe for a typical American it only comes to one person from a lifetime of a person’s industrial GHG emissions (note we are NOT counting breathing here, since emissions from that are much needed by plants). Maybe some here would be okay with that, thinking I’m only killing one person, but I’m not okay with it. And, of course, we can’t really calculate the exact number, since some of our emissions will be there in the atmosphere for many 1000s of years. So it might be each typical American is responsible for the death of, say, 10 people (or more) with a 1000 year time frame.

This simply a matter of Catholic “faith and morals,” it’s a matter of violating one of the 10 Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” which can be found in nearly all religions.
See chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-infectious-disease
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/en/
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/whoconferenceonhealthandclimatechangefinalreport.pdf?ua=1

“Already, climate change is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from changing patterns of disease, weather events, such as heat-waves and floods, and degradation of water supplies, sanitation, and agriculture, according to the latest WHO data. Children, women and the poor are among those most vulnerable to climate-related impacts and consequent diseases, such as malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition.”
Click to expand...
Notice it reads 100 million COULD die from climate change by 2030.
It doesn’t say WILL die. Those sound like scare tactics to me. That is roughly 14 years from now. Do you see that many people being killed due to climate change in 14 years? There might be a global epidemic that might cause that or the earth tilting on its axis, but I don’t see climate change causing that many deaths.
 
lynnvinc said:
You could read Laudato Si to find out, or here is some info I have on hand:

“Report: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030” usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

And the report to which it refers: “Climate Vulnerability Monitor” at daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/
Some quotes:
“THE MAIN FINDING OF THIS REPORT IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALREADY HELD BACK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: IT IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE WORLD ECONOMY, WHILE INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE CONSIDERED A LEADING GLOBAL CAUSE OF DEATH.”

& “Climate change is already with us. It kills. It steals livelihoods. And it takes the most from those who have the least. But the costs are largely hidden from our understanding. Inaction on climate change actually takes from us all…”

One needs to consider the victims of bodily and property harm now and into the future (since a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years) of the plethora of effects from climate change: heatwaves, droughts, floods, increased intensity of storms & hurricanes, wildfires, sea rise, disease spread, harm to food productivity from these, etc.

For instance it is estimated that half of the heat-related deaths (or 35,000 deaths) in Europe in the summer of 2003 can be attributed to AGW. WHO estimates that 150,000 people each year die from disease spread due to AGW.* If you calculate all the deaths, harms, and property damage from AGW, it would be staggering. “Attribution science” is improving all the time, and is finding AGW implicated in more and more harms.

So then the question is how many people am I personally responsible for killing from AGW effects. Well, maybe for a typical American it only comes to one person from a lifetime of a person’s industrial GHG emissions (note we are NOT counting breathing here, since emissions from that are much needed by plants). Maybe some here would be okay with that, thinking I’m only killing one person, but I’m not okay with it. And, of course, we can’t really calculate the exact number, since some of our emissions will be there in the atmosphere for many 1000s of years. So it might be each typical American is responsible for the death of, say, 10 people (or more) with a 1000 year time frame.

This simply a matter of Catholic “faith and morals,” it’s a matter of violating one of the 10 Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” which can be found in nearly all religions.
See chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-infectious-disease
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/en/
& who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/whoconferenceonhealthandclimatechangefinalreport.pdf?ua=1

“Already, climate change is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from changing patterns of disease, weather events, such as heat-waves and floods, and degradation of water supplies, sanitation, and agriculture, according to the latest WHO data. Children, women and the poor are among those most vulnerable to climate-related impacts and consequent diseases, such as malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition.”
Click to expand...
This is nothing new…

These scare tactics have been going on since the middle of the last century.

1970…“We will be in an ice age by the year 2000”
1976…“Global cooling will cause a World War by 2000”
1989…“Global Warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000”
1990…“We have only 10 years to save the rain forests”
1999…"The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years
2000…“Snow will be a thing of the past”
2007…“Global warming will cause fewer hurricanes”
2008…“The Arctic will be ice free by 2013”
2012…“Global Warming will cause more hurricanes”

Remember this:

“The greater the dependence on government grants, the more dire the climate change predictions.”

“The more the case for man-made climate change unravels, the more shrill its supporters become.”

“The more cute and likeable the animal the more likely it is to appear in newspapers articles as a victim of climate change.”
 
lynnvinc said:
Totally. I just amazes me how so many people here think they are so much smarter and better informed than Pope Francis, who has background in science and has been into AGW for a long time and concerned about its harmful effects esp on the poor of the world.

They are informed and influenced by the “devoil” powers that be and their multi-million dollar climate change denialist industry, which roars so much louder than scientists working hard out there in the lab or the field.

I hate to say this but it seems to me that maybe they are being deceived willingly. I hope not. I hope is it just their naivety and lack of awareness. I’d hate to think the “Cain” factor of our human nature is playing an ugly role in it.
Click to expand...
Hi Lynn,
I think the Holy Father is wrong to put his trust in the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. See my posts 76-80. His concern for the poor doesn’t make him right on the science. I won’t speculate about his (or your) motives or state of mind in embracing climate activism. I will just point out that there is no justification for it, given what we now know.

I liken the process by which human CO2 emissions have come to be implicated in dangerous global warming to a criminal trial. To be sure, in the beginning there was probable cause to suspect that CO2 was guilty. It is a greenhouse gas and must contribute some to warming. But along the way a variety of unsavory interest groups (commies, radical environmentalists, population control advocates, world governance types, etc.) saw how convicting poor ol’ CO2 would benefit their agendas. And so folks started agitating for CO2’s conviction. And lo and behold CO2 was convicted. Now the IPCC, the prosecutions star witness, is urging the jury for the maximum punishment–drastic cuts in human CO2 emissions.

But wait a minute. Did CO2 get a fair trial? Not at all. There was a rush to judgment. There was prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Evidence was manufactured and suppressed. There is new evidence exonerating our poor defendant. Oh, and the prosecution’s star expert witness, the IPCC, has been utterly discredited. See posts 76-80. We want a new trial! Free CO2! Free CO2!
 
Ender said:
Given that atmospheric temperatures have not risen for the past 18 years on what are you basing this assertion?

Ender
Click to expand...
The ‘global’ temperatures have indeed risen and we know this because they have been measured. Just look at the amount of carbon that’s been sent up into the atmosphere since 1950s. And on that link summarizes the evidence for global warming. Click on the links to see the facts.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
I liken the process by which human CO2 emissions have come to be implicated in dangerous global warming to a criminal trial. To be sure, in the beginning there was probable cause to suspect that CO2 was guilty. It is a greenhouse gas and must contribute some to warming. But along the way a variety of unsavory interest groups (commies, radical environmentalists, population control advocates, world governance types, etc.) saw how convicting poor ol’ CO2 would benefit their agendas. And so folks started agitating for CO2’s conviction. And lo and behold CO2 was convicted. Now the IPCC, the prosecutions star witness, is urging the jury for the maximum punishment–drastic cuts in human CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
Fred I hope you can see the other side to this. I would say the unsavory interest groups are the ones who are profitting off of the way things are and don’t want to be ‘bothered’ by acting on climate change because it’s going to hit them in their pocketbooks. So it’s about greed and big money at stake. I mentioned the agriculture lobbyists for one who are putting more and more chemicals on their crops regardless if it gets in our food sources because they can make more profit that way. I mean, like organics, they cost more because they take the steps to make our food safe, but that’s not going to get corporate farmers rich by any means so they don’t. They’d just assume we get all sorts of autoimmune diseases and cancer before they’ll make changes in the way they do things. I say whats more important, money or people? I pick people.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
This is nothing new…

These scare tactics have been going on since the middle of the last century.

1970…“We will be in an ice age by the year 2000”
1976…“Global cooling will cause a World War by 2000”
1989…“Global Warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000”
1990…“We have only 10 years to save the rain forests”
1999…"The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years
2000…“Snow will be a thing of the past”
2007…“Global warming will cause fewer hurricanes”
2008…“The Arctic will be ice free by 2013”
2012…“Global Warming will cause more hurricanes”

Remember this:

“The greater the dependence on government grants, the more dire the climate change predictions.”

“The more the case for man-made climate change unravels, the more shrill its supporters become.”

“The more cute and likeable the animal the more likely it is to appear in newspapers articles as a victim of climate change.”
Click to expand...
There are article after article from scientists who concur that our world is undergoing climate change at an accelerated rate and our weather is and will get more severe due to greenhouse gases warming the planet. This is a consensus among most scientists. We didn’t even know much about this in 1970 so it is not fair to say that they knew all the answers, but most certainly they are zeroing in on the cause. Heck I knew from the 70s that the industrial age was affecting our environment and it’s only really been part of our life for the past century.
ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html#.VbrPa6RViko
 
Karen107 said:
There are article after article from scientists who concur that our world is undergoing climate change at an accelerated rate and our weather is and will get more severe due to greenhouse gases warming the planet. This is a consensus among most scientist. We didn’t even know much about this in 1970 so it is not fair to say that they knew all the answers, but most certainly they are zeroing in on the cause. Heck I knew from the 70s that the industrial age was affecting our environment and it’s only really been part of our life for the past century.

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html#.VbrPa6RViko
Click to expand...
One would think for global warming to be a problem there would have to be some warming taking place?
 
Karen107 said:
There IS!! I just posted a link with evidence to prove this so! Why is it that people make these statements which are so contrary to what is being said by mainstream scientists?

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Click to expand...
Because NASA cooked the numbers and show a increase in temperature that didn’t happen . And even with their Cooked numbers they were not even close to what we were told was going to happen 20 years ago
 
I don’t believe in global warming, if it were real there would be less ice in the Arctic than there is now. Pollution is a serious problem though. China is bad for air pollution.
 
HelpingStranger said:
I don’t believe in global warming, if it were real there would be less ice in the Arctic than there is now. .
Click to expand...
There IS less Ice in the Arctic!! Scientists concur!

noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html

The Arctic Sea ice extent is the second lowest on record, following last year’s measure, which broke the record. Based on climate conditions you’re seeing, is it possible this warming trend will continue?

The observations indicate both the planet, as a whole, and the Arctic region, even more rapidly, are warming up. The models are predicting this trend to continue in the foreseeable future. The ongoing decrease of sea ice in the Arctic is tied to this warming trend and is expected to continue. It should be noted that most of the thick, multiyear polar ice pack, composed in the 1980s of ice 10 years or more in age, has already been lost from the Arctic due to both drifting into the North Atlantic and melting. To get back to such a pack, we would need at least a 10-year cooling trend, which is not expected, nor forecasted, by any model.

Another article.

nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-reaches-lowest-extent-record

And remember that the Polar bear are dying due to lack of ice due to global warming?

polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/climate-change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top