Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[qui_est_ce]

Neil Anthony, how to adapt is a key. I got this statement of Pope Benedict’s from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html#_edn18

StAnastasia

His says we must be good stewards of the environment. He says we should take care of the poor and those who would suffer from climate change. Nothing new here.

From the encyclical:
*4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development. *

Nowhere does he say CO2 is the cause. Nowhere does he talk about greenhouse gases. Nowhere does he say we can control climate change.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Reminds me of those religious groups that set a date for the end of the world and then set a new one once the first one passes.

:yup::tsktsk::bowdown:

 

[qui_est_ce]

As the Supreme Court Justice said about pornography - “I know it when I see it.”{snip}
But one example might be how the eco-left has infiltrated our school systems for decades to contaminate young minds (talk about morality)

I’ll humor your request and give but two examples of eco-indoctrination that Catholics ought to abhor and be fighting, not pushing this movement.

Fourth Grade Teacher’s Manual telling teachers to teach, “There is no difference between a boy a dog and a rat.” straight from the mouth of some sick eco-worshipper.

Then you might try the famous advertisement in the wall Street Journal a few years back which are the same thinking folks as those politicians pushing AGW which demanded the principle of bi-diversity where no living creature has any more value than another. You can’t get much more Satanic in demeaning the dignity and preciousness of humans, but 500 of most of the same eco-leftists you hear from today. (Kennedys etc) They never did say whether we should protect living viruses such as HIV, but the entire movement is designed to lower man -not raise other species. Thiink of multi-culturalism amongst species -no culture is better than another (take that you Christians)

I repeat -rational people see this stuff for what it is (anti-Christian leftist propaganda-tickled ears or not.)

As the Supreme Court Justice said about pornography - “I know it when I see it.”
sidbrown;6056897:

In other words, you don’t really know what the difference is between the two.
Don L;6057019:

You’d make a lousy lawyer. Why would an intellegent person ever respond seriously to such a transparent “gottcha” question?

It is true that I am not a lawyer and I am not in the business of defending criminals. But this is beside the point. When a person makes an accusation of indoctrination and not education but then refuses to define what he means by the terms, why would it be out of order to say that the person may be speaking gibberish? It is difficult if not impossible to make sense out of someone’s argument if they themselves do not understand the terms which they are using or cannot communicate the meaning of those terms.

I patiently described two examples of flagrant propaganda by the eco-left (there are gazillions more you must have seen and ignored) and you chose to ignore them and repeat your "gotccha"question.

 

[Calliso]

I wonder why people named it Greenland

PR reasons Greenland was warmer at the time but far from really being “green” the icesheet would have still covered most of it. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

 

[qui_est_ce]

PR reasons Greenland was warmer at the time but far from really being “green” the icesheet would have still covered most of it. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

I wonder why Newfoundland was called “Vinland?”

 

[qui_est_ce]

scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

Your source is simply not true. Starvation and emaciation didn’t occur until the MWP gave way to the LIA. It’s an opinion not based on the facts.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wonder why people named it Greenland

Yea, and what happened to the dinosaurs?

What about the mastodons?

What happened to the glacier that covered North America all the way to New England?

What happened to the sea that covered the Midwest?

 

[kimmielittle]

We are told to forget Climategate…Just some bad emails…

BUT…

---

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.

If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.

Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.

Michael L. Wamsted
Associate General Council”

---

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/

 

[joe_clark]

His says we must be good stewards of the environment. He says we should take care of the poor and those who would suffer from climate change. Nothing new here.

From the encyclical:
*4. . *

Nowhere does he say CO2 is the cause. Nowhere does he talk about greenhouse gases. Nowhere does he say we can control climate change.

However, he does suggest that we can effect climate change which covers all. There is a difference.

 

[kimmielittle]

I wonder why Newfoundland was called “Vinland?”

 

[qui_est_ce]

However, he does suggest that we can effect climate change which covers all. There is a difference.

I believe he was talking about deforestation and misuse of natural resources.

 

[buffalo]

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

The claim was both simple and terrifying: that temperatures on planet Earth are now ‘likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years’.
As its authors from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) must have expected, it made headlines around the world.
Yet some of the scientists who helped to draft it, The Mail on Sunday can reveal, harboured uncomfortable doubts.
In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’.

more…

 

[StAnastasia]

Yea, and what happened to the dinosaurs?

Fundamentalists – Protestant and Catholic – believe dinosaurs were saddled and ridden by Adam and Eve, and that they went extinct 4,000 years ago, shortly after Noah’s Flood.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am just a reader here who is trying to understand what people on this thread mean when they use those terms. I don’t know why I am being subject to personal attacks and accused of being a lousy lawyer. If you don’t want to define the terms that you are using, then it makes no sense to require a lousy lawyer to do so.

Sidbrown, you can report abuse and personal attacks, such as the remark about how you would be a “lousy lawyer.”

 

[kimmielittle]

However, he does suggest that we can effect climate change which covers all. There is a difference.

Actually, I believe He was talking not of effecting climate change…BUT the affects from climate change…there is a big difference.

 

[StAnastasia]

I believe he was talking about deforestation and misuse of natural resources.

No, Pope Benedict means climate change:

Paragraph 4: “Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change,…?”

Paragraph 7: “To protect the environment, and to safeguard natural resources and the climate,…”

Paragraph 10: “…implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combatting climate change and overcoming poverty.”

Paragraph 10: “Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change.”

StAnastasia

 

[wolters1]

I just want to comment that the tone of this debate is really disappointing. It’s just as bad to take outrageous positions like the threadstarter’s as it is to fabricate scientific data to support a predetermined position.

We should all be honest, open-minded, and seeking objective truth. Making outlandish claims that are supported only by political ideology discredits you and others with whom you associate. Having said that, I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, I believe He was talking not of effecting climate change…BUT the affects from climate change…there is a big difference.

Kimmielittle, how would you explain the difference, in your own words (not in a cut-and-paste posting)?

 

[StAnastasia]

I just want to comment that the tone of this debate is really disappointing. It’s just as bad to take outrageous positions like the threadstarter’s as it is to fabricate scientific data to support a predetermined position. We should all be honest, open-minded, and seeking objective truth. Making outlandish claims that are supported only by political ideology discredits you and others with whom you associate. Having said that, I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

I agree with wolters1, and I am skeptical of skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

StAnastasia

 

[kimmielittle]

Why would one try to instigate another to report?

I thought it was a matter between the two of them.