Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Karen107]

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

20 years ago? Think about this…

Can a weatherman predict a rainfall with exact measurements 2 weeks in advance? Can they know a tornado is going to hit an area even one hour before it hits? They suspect, they watch for funnels, but they really don’t know everything with exact prediction. by the looks of this, people want to say oh because they are not spot on they must be 'cooked up"Well I think someone has cooked something up and it’s not the scientists. Its the lobbyists of big business that doesn’t want to change their way of doing things for the sake of the people who are affected by what they themselves are doing.

Can you tell me how quickly science advances when they are on to something.? Just think about technology and how it changes and comes up with something new day to day as they learn more. The study of climate change really isn’t that old, but the scientists are definitely figuring things out. We are wrecking our world by polluting it and we need to change our way of living into more sustainable living so our future won’t be affected. The worlds poor are already feeling it.

Maybe the real problem is lack of ‘wanting’ to believe what the scientists are saying.

 

[estesbob]

20 years ago? Think about this…

Can a weatherman predict a rainfall with exact measurements 2 weeks in advance? Can they know a tornado is going to hit an area even one hour before it hits? They suspect, they watch for funnels, but they really don’t know everything with exact prediction. by the looks of this, people want to say oh because they are not spot on they must be 'cooked up"Well I think someone has cooked something up and it’s not the scientists. Its the lobbyists of big business that doesn’t want to change their way of doing things for the sake of the people who are affected by what they themselves are doing.

Can you tell me how quickly science advances when they are on to something.? Just think about technology and how it changes and comes up with something new day to day as they learn more. The study of climate change really isn’t that old, but the scientists are definitely figuring things out. We are wrecking our world by polluting it.

Maybe the real problem is lack of ‘wanting’ to believe what the scientists are saying.

Maybe the real problem is scientistsv told us explicitly what was going to happen over the next 20 years back in 1995 and it didn’t. And now rather and then admit that perhaps their premise was wrong they come up with increasingly bizarre reasons as to why we should still trust them even though they’ve never been right .

 

[SuperLuigi]

The last few Hurricane season have been relatively quiet. I am sure, however, that that is somehow related to AGW

In either scenario, right?

Or even if it’s the same as before?

 

[wittgenstein]

Yes. He believes in science and does not believe that every scientific organization in the world (NASA,Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society…) are part of a conspiracy. He is a rational man and so of course he acknowledges AGW.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.”

They really want people to be hysterical about this global warming.

 

[wittgenstein]

Actually, global cooling was never popular among scientists. Only a tiny percentage thought it was possible.
It is one of those lies (like climategate etc) that was proven false.

 

[wittgenstein]

Yes, the predictions were proven false. The rise in temp is greater then predicted. And yes, the increase in the intensity and frequency of hurricanes is directly related to AGW. Also, the massive drought in the west has been proven to be AGW related.
Anyway, the anti-AGW people do not believe in facts and think that every scientific organization in the world is falsifying data. Therefore, since all data is rejected it is pointless to debate them.

 

[Karen107]

One more thing before I go night night… I saw that people incorrectly believe that CO2 gases aren’t harmful…

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?

Interesting. Now if there are less plants due to deforestation and development, there would be more CO2, in addition to an increase in carbon from our emissions, and methane from cows… (because we know people like steak and hamburgers) so the CO2 goes up into the atmosphere because there is less vegetation due to drought conditions from global warming, and makes a greenhouse effect trapping the heat from the sun in the earth causing the ice caps to melt, the oceans to rise and get warmer, causing more violent storms from the warmer water. The people along the coast and living on the islands get wiped out and forced to migrate. and the ones who live in the rural areas of the world have dried streams and barren land, so they have to migrate. So all these poor are migrating and often will do anything it takes to eat or get water including being exploited. Yes everything does affect one another… The natural way is the godly way, the unnatural 'mans way is the ungodly way… ahhh breathe Karen… Good night everyone…and God bless you all…

 

[lynnvinc]

So…by not exhaling we can save the planet…

This bring up an interesting fact that plants actually need CO2 to survive & thrive, so we need to keep breathing. It is our excessive industrial emissions that is the main problem.

Plants actually take up about half of our emissions, so if we were to reduce by half or so, that would certainly help the situation. Of course, there are poor people who don’t even have electricity yet, and they may need to increase their emissions a bit so they can live healthy and full lives, allow there children to study at night so they too can stand a chance to go to college.

That means that we in the rich countries will need to reduce more than half, since others who are very poor may not be able to reduce much and might even have to increase a bit.

Since we in rich countries like the US can reduce by over 75% cost-effectively, without reducing our living standards or productivity, I think it’s time we started reducing…

By using less coal-powered energy and reducing our ICE car driving and getting more efficient cars or EVs even, we will also reduce the harms entailed in fossil fuel extraction, shipping, processing, spills and accidents, combustion, and waste disposal. Those cancer alleys, etc. and harm to lakes, forests, soil, property and lungs from acid rain, and so on. Reducing is a win-win-win-win situation, while going on emitting at high levels is a lose-lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE situation.

We need to do this people. Logistically it will take some 10 or so years to reduce by 75%; after that we can see if we need to sacrifice or lower our living standards or productivity, like maybe turning the AC up to 82F in summer, or going on a diet for those who are overweight, etc.

 

[lynnvinc]

Given their track record why should we accept any of these wild predictions?

Who’s track record? 1000s of scientists around world and our Pope?

 

[wittgenstein]

CO2 is necessary for life. But too much from burning fuel (which more then makes up for deforestation ) is dangerous. Similarly, water is necessary for a man to live. But making a man drink 10 gallons every 10 minutes for an hour is not healthy.

 

[wittgenstein]

I guess the denier cult thinks that not only is every scientific organization in the world part of a conspiracy but the Pope is also part of the conspiracy!!

 

[SuperLuigi]

20 years ago? Think about this…

Can a weatherman predict a rainfall with exact measurements 2 weeks in advance? Can they know a tornado is going to hit an area even one hour before it hits? They suspect, they watch for funnels, but they really don’t know everything with exact prediction. by the looks of this, people want to say oh because they are not spot on they must be 'cooked up"Well I think someone has cooked something up and it’s not the scientists. Its the lobbyists of big business that doesn’t want to change their way of doing things for the sake of the people who are affected by what they themselves are doing.

Except they aren’t even close. 40 years ago they said we’d all freeze to death. And “global warming” has been blamed for every opposing weather force of nature in the last 15 years. The inconsistencies and error are much too great.

It would be prudent to ask those who keep warning us about rising seas why they are buying beach-front property…

Can you tell me how quickly science advances when they are on to something.?

When there’s grant money involved, some of them will say whatever will get them the grant money.

Just think about technology and how it changes and comes up with something new day to day as they learn more.

The study of climate change really isn’t that old, but the scientists are definitely figuring things out.

We are wrecking our world by polluting it and we need to change our way of living into more sustainable living so our future won’t be affected. The worlds poor are already feeling it.

Actually, many of the solutions to this “climate change” nonsense are unsustainable and have caused considerable environmental damage. Solar energy projects have rolled back millions of dollars of investment in conservation projects and hydroelectric dams are the leading cause of freshwater species extinction.

Maybe the real problem is lack of ‘wanting’ to believe what the scientists are saying.

That’s funny. Atheists and leftists often insist how science and religion are separate. Which part of science do we need to believe in if it’s based on the observable universe?

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

Unlike some people here (who say AGW is definitely NOT happening and there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, implying Pope Francis is off his rocker), the report uses caution in its words. We don’t know if people are going to continue emitting GHGs at the current level, or will reduce, or other factors might could arise to mitigate or even increase that, so they can’t exactly predict. What it means is with their best knowledge today (as of 2012) based on 100s of studies 100 million COULD die from AGW.

Are you saying we should wait until 2030 and see if 100 million actually do die before we decide to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other things the Pope is calling us to do now?

What if only 50 million die by then? Too bad for them, but we refuse to become energy/resource efficient/conservative or go on renewable energy – is that it?

 

[lynnvinc]

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

That’s not the way I heard it. NASA tweaked the number to be more valid and accurate – which scientists do all the time, sometimes lowering the results.

You must be listening to some very wrong and perhaps evil sources.

As the Bible instructs, be a wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.

And I would suggest, err on the side of prudence and caution and do the needful (as instructed by the Pope) to mitigate AGW and a host of other environmental problems. Just do the things that save money or don’t cost (net), if you don’t want to sacrifice. Isn’t that the least we can do…which should get people in developed countries down to a 30 to 60% reduction in their GHG emissions.

 

[lynnvinc]

…“global warming” has been blamed for every opposing weather force of nature in the last 15 years. The inconsistencies and error are much too great…

The reason that AGW cause both droughts and floods is simply hydrology. Warmer air holds more water vapor, it sucks out water from water bodies, plants, and soil, desiccating them, making areas more vulnerable to wild fires. Air patterns may take the moisture elsewhere. Under certain weather conditions that moisture can come down as deluges. AGW is actually causing more precipitation overall – which also means greater blizzards during winters in the north. And the melt from snow, ice, and glaciers can contribute to flooding.

Warm sea surface temps are a necessary (but not sufficient) factor in hurricanes, which are increasing in intensity as in the Philippines. It’s a matter of increased heat energy turning into increased kinetic energy.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not the way I heard it. NASA tweaked the number to be more valid and accurate – which scientists do all the time, sometimes lowering the results.

You must be listening to some very wrong and perhaps evil sources.

As the Bible instructs, be a wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.

And I would suggest, err on the side of prudence and caution and do the needful (as instructed by the Pope) to mitigate AGW and a host of other environmental problems. Just do the things that save money or don’t cost (net), if you don’t want to sacrifice. Isn’t that the least we can do…which should get people in developed countries down to a 30 to 60% reduction in their GHG emissions.

They “tweaked” the numbers and surprise surprise the numbers now showed a warming trend . Meanwhile satellite measurement of temperature likewise shows no warming for over 20 years . I too want to air on the side of prudence and caution which why I’m not willing to buy into the massive tax & regulations schemes proposed by those who promote AGW. It would be devastating to the poor and have little effect on the climate, if any

 

[estesbob]

The reason that AGW cause both droughts and floods is simply hydrology. Warmer air holds more water vapor, it sucks out water from water bodies, plants, and soil, desiccating them, making areas more vulnerable to wild fires. Air patterns may take the moisture elsewhere. Under certain weather conditions that moisture can come down as deluges. AGW is actually causing more precipitation overall – which also means greater blizzards during winters in the north. And the melt from snow, ice, and glaciers can contribute to flooding.

Warm sea surface temps are a necessary (but not sufficient) factor in hurricanes, which are increasing in intensity as in the Philippines. It’s a matter of increased heat energy turning into increased kinetic energy.

One has to wonder is there anything global warming doesn’t cause? Perhaps we have now found the unifying theory of everything

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes. He believes in science and does not believe that every scientific organization in the world (NASA,Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society…) are part of a conspiracy. He is a rational man and so of course he acknowledges AGW.

How can anyone “believe” in science?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Who’s track record? 1000s of scientists around world and our Pope?

The Pope has said that climate change cannot be compared morally to abortion. Abortion is the greater evil, and people need to keep that in mind when voting.

Also, I doubt a lot of the people who are described as “scientists” are really scientists. And considering what I have seen in the peer-review process, I would say that track record is not very good.