Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think you can equate white lies to gain the boss’s favor with perpetrating worldwide scientific fraud. Also, I think what impresses most scientists is the clear logic and disciplined methodology that other scientists employ in their studies. I think in this respect scientists wish most of all to impress their fellow colleagues and they do this by producing highly professional studies.

I wasn’t talking about all kinds of people who are into “climate science,” as you call it, but the majority of the Academies of Science around the world. What is this penchant for minimizing the source of the unwanted opinions? Better that scientists work this out with scientific facts. There is disagreement within the scientific community; better that scientists focus on those disagreements and reconcile them. Everything else is just muddying the waters in an attempt to sway people to one POV or the other. If some scientists disagree with the larger consensus, they need to produce the facts that will change the consensus. I still haven’t bought into the notion that the larger number of scientists are in the tank for money and fame.

Then one needs to expose the flaws in any given study. But what you are saying, even if it turns out to be true, is unsubstantiated speculation at this point. Again, it appears the answer is for the scientific community to discipline its own. I can’t believe that scientists, especially those who do not belong to the consensus position, are not questioning the findings and the bases for the findings of other scientists and bringing forth data to disprove them. This is how science evolves to a more and more accurate understanding of the factors at play.

When theories cannot be proved or disproved, they remain theories. When the money all goes to one theory that can’t be empirically demonstrated, its proliferation is guaranteed. There is no reason to believe people engaged in “climate science” are any better than anybody else in that regard.

It once paid to “demonstrate” that tobacco was good for a person, and many believed it. It once paid to “demonstrate” that artificial contraception would greatly improve the lives of women and children, and many (other than, of course, Pope Paul VI) believed that too.

Today it pays to “demonstrate” that the world will fry if the poor and elderly are able to heat and cool their homes and refrigerate their food, and to further “demonstrate” that alternative energy sources make economic sense. The latter were disproved in spades in the 1980s and are pretty well shown to be failures in their recent renaissance. The former we will see soon enough.

And when the sea does not inundate NYC and the world does not turn to a cinder, but many have suffered and died because they couldn’t afford energy, some will wring their hands and say to wait awhile longer and keep doing the same things.

 

[JamesCaruso]

When theories cannot be proved or disproved, they remain theories. When the money all goes to one theory that can’t be empirically demonstrated, its proliferation is guaranteed. There is no reason to believe people engaged in “climate science” are any better than anybody else in that regard.

It once paid to “demonstrate” that tobacco was good for a person, and many believed it. It once paid to “demonstrate” that artificial contraception would greatly improve the lives of women and children, and many (other than, of course, Pope Paul VI) believed that too.

Today it pays to “demonstrate” that the world will fry if the poor and elderly are able to heat and cool their homes and refrigerate their food, and to further “demonstrate” that alternative energy sources make economic sense. The latter were disproved in spades in the 1980s and are pretty well shown to be failures in their recent renaissance. The former we will see soon enough.

And when the sea does not inundate NYC and the world does not turn to a cinder, but many have suffered and died because they couldn’t afford energy, some will wring their hands and say to wait awhile longer and keep doing the same things.

Okay people, who is paying the MMGWers and who is paying the anti-MMGWers?

Would that be the green/clean technology people (solar, wind, LED, battery, fuel cell, etc.) for the MMGWers?

Would that be the energy and related industries (oil, gas, coal, automotive, trucking, airlines, etc.) for the anti-MMGWers?

So are the green/clean technology people paying more than the energy industry to get scientists to support their financial interests? Is that what we’re supposed to believe?

Also, is no action is better than some action?

Is the only choice between (1) prosperity and (2) oppressing/freezing the elderly and poor? I don’t get it. There must be many more alternatives than that.

Ridgerunner,

you made my argument a while ago when you said they used to say that cigarettes wouldn’t hurt you, but they do, contraception is good for women, but it isn’t. Now the fossil energy industry and those who depend on it support the narrative that human activity does not cause global warming which could result in great damage to the earth and the people on it, but are they and their proponents right?

They said that scrubbers to clean coal plant emissions causing acid rain would bankrupt the companies and the harm was not that serious. It didn’t bankrupt the industry and it was proven very harmful. Scrubbers are required by law.

The youths who want marijuana legalized say it isn’t harmful, Are they right?

I am always suspicious when one segment of society says something isn’t harmful. It almost always turns out to be the other way around.

If science continues to tell us that human activity does cause GW and that it will likely be catastrophic, we will have take far more serious actions than we are now. I do hear what Ridgerunner is saying, and we do have to make sure that we don’t cause an even worse calamity than the one we’re trying to avert, so the scare rhetoric on the Al Gore side needs to be toned down to the extent that hyperbole and worse case scenarios are being spun. .

Look what happened in alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is harmful-- look at all the cancer of the liver-- look at all the tragedies caused by drunken drivers-- drunkenness takes its tolls in many other ways, as well. But the cure was worse than the disease, with all the evils that accompanied organized crime that controlled the bootleg market. The same might be said about drugs use-- it’s undoubtedly harmful, but is the resultant organized crime from making it illegal possibly worse?

IF we reach the point, or have reached the point, where we do have to take action against certain human activities to avoid some likely or proven serious consequence, we need to be very wise in what we choose as a remedy and how we apply that remedy.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am always suspicious when one segment of society says something isn’t harmful. It almost always turns out to be the other way around.

Exactly. We should be striving to “avoid the false negative” of assuming no harm, when in fact there is grave harm (as the scientists are uncovering year after year on the AGW issue).

And it behooves us to be suspicious and take prudent measures to avoid that harm, even if we are not 100% sure it is a consequent of AGW.

It’s very sad that blow-drying one’s hair trumps lives of the poor and young, esp when there are alternatives, like taking the shampoo earlier and letting one’s hair dry naturally…and the myriad of other solutions to reducing one’s energy/resource consumption and concomitant GHG emissions and harmful pollution, without harm to the economy or one’s living standards.

I for one stand for not playing Russian roulette with life (with 19 of the 20 chambers loaded to kill - the scientific .05 on the null or 95% confidence in claims they make).

Count me in as a soldier (bad analogy…maybe “peace-worker”) against the forces of death.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here we go. Some conservatives promoting a much better plan than Obama’s plan – I think it’s a fee and divident (tax neutral) thing: thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/310225-gop-aide-writing-anonymously-party-should-reclaim-climate-debate-

May the best plan win…and I’m thinking that would be the conservative one

Here’s the concluding paragraphs that indicate there are at least some Republicans into solving the AGW issue in sensible ways that trump solutions of the other party, and to me sound like the revenue neutral “fee & 100% dividend back to the people” plan, or “cut the fossil fuel subsidies & give money raised from that to the people so they can pay for the resultant higher energy costs or invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity” plan that I would propose if I were in power:

Republicans in Congress could quickly reclaim this debate, but I recognize this won’t happen until a critical mass of conservatives in the general public buy in. That’s why conservatives outside of Congress – the ones “with nothing to lose” like Bob Inglis, George Shultz, Art Laffer and Kevin Hassett – are paving the way for Republicans to take the small government, pro-growth conservative stand on climate change. While I hesitate to extrapolate anecdotes to broader trends, I know from my experiences that there are a handful of Republican Members and a larger number of Republican staffers who recognize the problem – for the country, for the party – but don’t know how to solve it.

Ironically, traditional Republican opposition to climate change proposals actually improves the chances that a clean, revenue-neutral carbon tax could be signed into law without all the big government add-ons that would otherwise be thrown in by Democrats. If we just come to the table, Republicans can lead on climate change and the American people will be with us.
But is it indeed sad the Republican aide had to write that anonymously. The fossil fuel industries have a grip on both Republicans and Democrats, but it seem nowadays on the Republicans more…making them sign petitions to deny AGW, etc., which they then have to do for fear of being blackballed, or at least having their campaign funds cut off.

 

[Kevin_B]

So he’s even more wrong?

forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between an opinion article and a scientific article. I don’t think I can help you with that problem. Maybe by pointing out that scientific literature usually does not resort to using ad hominem attacks like “alarmist” or that he provides no sources for virtually all of his claims, like the one that the warming we saw earlier this century was simply the end of the little ice age.

But thank you for perfectly demonstrating the problems we have with global warming deniers. How can we expect them to recognize science when they don’t even understand the difference between scientific literature and opinion articles?

One does not have to believe in conspiracies to wonder why the certitude of human suffering is justified by computer models made by people who want to publish their results and who know how rewarding some kinds of answers will be and how unrewarding the opposite answers will be. They can do that on an individual basis. They don’t even have to know each other.

You ate very right. You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to believe that tens of thousands of scientists all over the globe independently decided to fake data. You do, however, need a pretty much non-existent understanding of statistics to not see how incredibly unlikely that is.

You also need to have an incomplete understanding of climate change to believe some of the things you stated. We know Europe and Greenland were warmer before. We know that CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming. We know that there were very bad droughts before now. And we know politicians are using this tragedy to gain power.
We know all these things, but guess what? We still come up with the conclusion that man is responsible for much of the warming in the last century. Do you really think that thousands of climatologists do not have the information you posted? Do you really think it is some secret information only you know? Have you even considered the possibility that all the things you stated are correct, and yet we are STILL responsible for warming the globe?

This is another perfect example of the challenmges we seek to overcome. People fiond some bit of information that has been known to others for decades, and believe they are the first people to realize this information. They honestly think tens of thousands of climate scientists overlooked this information when coming up with their results, and if they only pluuged “Greenland was warmer once” into the models, all signs of human involvement would disappear. This is, of course, false. Scientists know our earth’s temperature history going back thousands of years, and it all goes into the models they are using. It is pretty much impossible to believe you will come up with some new, unheard of information just by reading news articles on global warming.

1. Even if only a small percentage of scientists fudge the data or report it in a less-than-honest way, the larger problem comes when other scientists rely on these reported findings, and use them as reference points in their own research, because they trust the scientists who presented them. Unknowingly, these later scientists are building their houses on sand.

True, but isnb’t it more likely that the small percentage of scientists who believe man is not responsible foir global warming, and the small percentage of scientists who made a mistake, are one in the same?
Yes, it is possible that some scientists made mistakes in researching global warming. But these papers are reviewed by hundreds of scientists before being used by the community as a whole. The possibility that such a mistake was never caught, and still has never been caught, is extremely small.

It once paid to “demonstrate” that tobacco was good for a person, and many believed it. It once paid to “demonstrate” that artificial contraception would greatly improve the lives of women and children, and many (other than, of course, Pope Paul VI) believed that too.

Today it pays to “demonstrate” that the world will fry if the poor and elderly are able to heat and cool their homes and refrigerate their food, and to further “demonstrate” that alternative energy sources make economic sense. The latter were disproved in spades in the 1980s and are pretty well shown to be failures in their recent renaissance. The former we will see soon enough.
.

Do you honestly, seriously believe there are no multi-billion dollar oil companies in the world who would pay handsomely for someone to prove their product is not bad for the environment? I don’t really believe this, of course; I believe the incredibly small amount of scientists who actually do not accept AGW as a scientific fact are simply mistaken, not corrupt. However, it is much, much more likely that 3% of climate scientsts are being paid off than that 97% of climate scientists are being paid off.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Here’s the concluding paragraphs that indicate there are at least some Republicans into solving the AGW issue in sensible ways that trump solutions of the other party, and to me sound like the revenue neutral “fee & 100% dividend back to the people” plan, or “cut the fossil fuel subsidies & give money raised from that to the people so they can pay for the resultant higher energy costs or invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity” plan that I would propose if I were in power:

Republicans in Congress could quickly reclaim this debate, but I recognize this won’t happen until a critical mass of conservatives in the general public buy in. That’s why conservatives outside of Congress – the ones “with nothing to lose” like Bob Inglis, George Shultz, Art Laffer and Kevin Hassett – are paving the way for Republicans to take the small government, pro-growth conservative stand on climate change. While I hesitate to extrapolate anecdotes to broader trends, I know from my experiences that there are a handful of Republican Members and a larger number of Republican staffers who recognize the problem – for the country, for the party – but don’t know how to solve it.

Ironically, traditional Republican opposition to climate change proposals actually improves the chances that a clean, revenue-neutral carbon tax could be signed into law without all the big government add-ons that would otherwise be thrown in by Democrats. If we just come to the table, Republicans can lead on climate change and the American people will be with us.
But is it indeed sad the Republican aide had to write that anonymously. The fossil fuel industries have a grip on both Republicans and Democrats, but it seem nowadays on the Republicans more…making them sign petitions to deny AGW, etc., which they then have to do for fear of being blackballed, or at least having their campaign funds cut off.

It seems strange to me that so-called conservatives would be for subsidizing fossil fuel all these years when they are so vocal against the liberals’ give-away programs. If one is a proponent of free enterprise and small government, then where is the sense in subsidizing an industry that is thriving on its own accord. Yes, it helps keep prices down, but I thought the principle of free enterprise was to let the market decide, and the principle of small government was to keep its involvement in the private sector as minimal as possible. Isn’t this another wealth redistribution scheme by taxing in order to subsidize fossil fuels so that the poor will not have to pay the higher prices? These industries are strongly established and they have captive customers, so why do they need subsidies? If the poor need relief from high energy bills, then attack that problem directly. It will not only be cheaper, because we would not be giving relief to everyone, but only to those who need it, but it will allow the free market to function as it should. Didn’t we deregulate the public utilities on the wholesale level a few years back? So what’s with subsidies?

 

[estesbob]

It seems strange to me that so-called conservatives would be for subsidizing fossil fuel all these years when they are so vocal against the liberals’ give-away programs. If one is a proponent of free enterprise and small government, then where is the sense in subsidizing an industry that is thriving on its own accord. Yes, it helps keep prices down, but I thought the principle of free enterprise was to let the market decide, and the principle of small government was to keep its involvement in the private sector as minimal as possible. Isn’t this another wealth redistribution scheme by taxing in order to subsidize fossil fuels so that the poor will not have to pay the higher prices? These industries are strongly established and they have captive customers, so why do they need subsidies? If the poor need relief from high energy bills, then attack that problem directly. It will not only be cheaper, because we would not be giving relief to everyone, but only to those who need it, but it will allow the free market to function as it should. Didn’t we deregulate the public utilities on the wholesale level a few years back? So what’s with subsidies?

And what subsidies are those ?

 

[meltzerboy]

I think one of the main reasons many conservatives are opposed to the theory of man-made climate change is that it is associated with environmentalists, who have traditionally been composed of liberals. Some environmentalists have no doubt gone too far in wanting to, for example, protect the lives of certain endangered species, sometimes at the expense of jobs, while, at the same time, not being opposed to abortion. However, ensuring the survival of the chain of life may be more essential for the continuation of our own species than most of us realize. Environmentalism has also been linked to other liberal policies and organizations such as PETA, which has been extreme in its tactics at times. Still other conservatives sincerely believe that environmentalist advocates are always opposed to economic improvement and the creation of jobs. Also, some of the alternative energy sources proposed by environmentalists have not had a very good track record and just seem weird to many. And then there are a smaller group of conservatives who are opposed to ANYTHING Obama is in favor of regardless of its potential merits. Hence, due to all the above reasons, the proliferation of conspiracy theories attempting to show that climate scientists don’t really know what they’re talking about and are just political pawns that have been bought by the current liberal establishment. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt might have thought about all this?

Nonetheless, as the saying goes, even a broken clock, that is, a liberal policy, tells the right time twice a day. This may very well be the case of man-made climate change theories and the scientists who have proposed them. (BTW, a scientific theory is NOT the same as a hypothesis; a theory has already been confirmed by means of evidence and testing of the evidence although any theory is subject to revision based on new evidence to the contrary.) Further, there are several non-liberal, otherwise conservative groups that have come on board in support of environmentalism and the theory of man-made climate change, including some Evangelicals and Catholics; so this is not solely a liberal cause.

 

[Gricken]

I think one of the main reasons many conservatives are opposed to the theory of man-made climate change is that it is associated with environmentalists, who have traditionally been composed of liberals. Some environmentalists have no doubt gone too far in wanting to, for example, protect the lives of certain endangered species, sometimes at the expense of jobs, while, at the same time, not being opposed to abortion. However, ensuring the survival of the chain of life may be more essential for the continuation of our own species than most of us realize. Environmentalism has also been linked to other liberal policies and organizations such as PETA, which has been extreme in its tactics at times. Still other conservatives sincerely believe that environmentalist advocates are always opposed to economic improvement and the creation of jobs. Also, some of the alternative energy sources proposed by environmentalists have not had a very good track record and just seem weird to many. And then there are a smaller group of conservatives who are opposed to ANYTHING Obama is in favor of regardless of its potential merits. Hence, due to all the above reasons, the proliferation of conspiracy theories attempting to show that climate scientists don’t really know what they’re talking about and are just political pawns that have been bought by the current liberal establishment. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt might have thought about all this?

Nonetheless, as the saying goes, even a broken clock, that is, a liberal policy, tells the right time twice a day. This may very well be the case of man-made climate change theories and the scientists who have proposed them. (BTW, a scientific theory is NOT the same as a hypothesis; a theory has already been confirmed by means of evidence and testing of the evidence although any theory is subject to revision based on new evidence to the contrary.) Further, there are several non-liberal, otherwise conservative groups that have come on board in support of environmentalism and the theory of man-made climate change, including some Evangelicals and Catholics; so this is not solely a liberal cause.

this so much. I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.

 

[lynnvinc]

It seems strange to me that so-called conservatives would be for subsidizing fossil fuel all these years when they are so vocal against the liberals’ give-away programs. If one is a proponent of free enterprise and small government, then where is the sense in subsidizing an industry that is thriving on its own accord. Yes, it helps keep prices down, but I thought the principle of free enterprise was to let the market decide, and the principle of small government was to keep its involvement in the private sector as minimal as possible. Isn’t this another wealth redistribution scheme by taxing in order to subsidize fossil fuels so that the poor will not have to pay the higher prices? These industries are strongly established and they have captive customers, so why do they need subsidies? If the poor need relief from high energy bills, then attack that problem directly. It will not only be cheaper, because we would not be giving relief to everyone, but only to those who need it, but it will allow the free market to function as it should. Didn’t we deregulate the public utilities on the wholesale level a few years back? So what’s with subsidies?

It works this way: oil and other big multinationals fund political campaigns and get candidates elected to office. It just so happens that big oil funded Bush Sr and Clinton the same amount in 1992 – they cared not for issues, like abortion, etc, but only wanted to ensure they had a door into the Oval Office. The politicians so elected with such money, then are beholdened to deliver goodies to their benefactors. At the very least they are expected not to claim AGW is real or a threat.

Very simple actually.

Recently it came to light how the Koch Bros (big oil) actually made a bunch of congressmen sign onto not passing any climate change legislation that would raise any taxes or put fees on oil, etc. See: grist.org/news/how-the-koch-brothers-screwed-over-the-climate-even-more-than-you-know/

 

[JamesCaruso]

And what subsidies are those ?

I was responding to their mention by lynnvinc in her post, but since you asked, I did some research. I did not evaluate the list, nor determine how many are directly to the energy industry companies themselves, or how many are to peripheral areas affecting CO2 emissions, but you can pretty much see for yourself from the lists below. If you go to that report you can also find a list of the energy subsidies that decrease CO2.

From U.S. Energy Subsidies: Effects on Energy Markets and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts: pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Fiscal_and_Budget_Policy/EnergySubsidiesFINAL.pdf

In 2005, U.S. government expenditures on subsidies that increased CO2 emissions were $9.1 billion and expenditures on subsidies that reduced CO2 emissions were $3.4 billion. By 2009, the respective figures shifted to $15.4 billion for subsidies that increased CO2 emissions and $18.5 billion for subsidies that reduced CO2 emissions. Subsidies that increased CO2 emissions include tax provisions for fossil fuel companies, assistance for low-income housing cooling and heating, and the alcohol fuels excise tax. Subsidies that reduced CO2 emissions include programs such as the home weatherization program, tax credits for energy efficient home improvements and renewable energy production, and loan guarantees for energy efficient improvements.

---

The 11 energy subsidies that we estimated most increased CO2 emissions from 2005 through 2009 are:

 alternative fuel production credit;
 alcohol fuels excise tax and credit;
 USDA corn payments attributable to ethanol;
 expensing of exploration and development costs;
 low-income home energy assistance program;
 excess percentage over cost depletion;
 capital gains treatment of royalties in coal;
 exclusion of special benefits for disabled coal miners;
 special rules for refund of the coal excise tax;
 84-month amortization of pollution control equipment; and
 temporary 50 percent expensing for equipment used in the refining of liquid fuels.15

---

**The U.S. government provides another 10 energy subsidies that we did not formally evaluate (Table 6). These subsidies include:
**
 the exclusion from income taxation of interest from bonds for various energy facilities;
 the accelerated depreciation of electricity transmission facilities for income tax purposes;
 a five-year carryover for net operating losses for electric transmission equipment;
 smart grid implementation program;
 preferential tax treatment of the income of certain electric cooperatives;
 DOE state energy activities;
 tax credit for production from advanced nuclear power facilities;
 expensing of tertiary injectants used in mining;
 preferential tax treatment of natural gas gathering lines; and
 qualified energy conservation bonds.17

 

[lynnvinc]

…In 2005, U.S. government expenditures on subsidies that increased CO2 emissions were $9.1 billion and expenditures on subsidies that reduced CO2 emissions were $3.4 billion. By 2009, the respective figures shifted to $15.4 billion for subsidies that increased CO2 emissions and $18.5 billion for subsidies that reduced CO2 emissions…

Actually that’s an increase in subsidies that increase CO2 – from $9.1 to $15.4 billion. Perhaps since that latter figure was in 2009, it may have been due to the gov dole for home heating & cooling. Or, Obama paying back his coal buddies

BTW, the great grandson of Teddy Roosevelt is at PEW at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_IV & c2es.org/about/board/roosevelt

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think one of the main reasons many conservatives are opposed to the theory of man-made climate change is that it is associated with environmentalists, who have traditionally been composed of liberals. Some environmentalists have no doubt gone too far in wanting to, for example, protect the lives of certain endangered species, sometimes at the expense of jobs, while, at the same time, not being opposed to abortion. However, ensuring the survival of the chain of life may be more essential for the continuation of our own species than most of us realize. Environmentalism has also been linked to other liberal policies and organizations such as PETA, which has been extreme in its tactics at times. Still other conservatives sincerely believe that environmentalist advocates are always opposed to economic improvement and the creation of jobs. Also, some of the alternative energy sources proposed by environmentalists have not had a very good track record and just seem weird to many. And then there are a smaller group of conservatives who are opposed to ANYTHING Obama is in favor of regardless of its potential merits. Hence, due to all the above reasons, the proliferation of conspiracy theories attempting to show that climate scientists don’t really know what they’re talking about and are just political pawns that have been bought by the current liberal establishment. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt might have thought about all this?

Nonetheless, as the saying goes, even a broken clock, that is, a liberal policy, tells the right time twice a day. This may very well be the case of man-made climate change theories and the scientists who have proposed them. (BTW, a scientific theory is NOT the same as a hypothesis; a theory has already been confirmed by means of evidence and testing of the evidence although any theory is subject to revision based on new evidence to the contrary.) Further, there are several non-liberal, otherwise conservative groups that have come on board in support of environmentalism and the theory of man-made climate change, including some Evangelicals and Catholics; so this is not solely a liberal cause.

So true. Remember when the judge shut down a major portion of the water supply to California because the water pumps might be endangering the delta smelt fish? . That put some 37,000 people out of work for the season. Those kinds of actions tend to polarize people. Since environmentalists are often stereotyped as liberals, the liberals took a shot on that one. But conservatives are environmentalists, too. It’s the extremes that are objectionable. I don’t know the percentage, but not all liberals were in favor of the judge’s decision, nor were all environmentalists. .

 

[JamesCaruso]

Actually that’s an increase in subsidies that increase CO2 – from $9.1 to $15.4 billion. Perhaps since that latter figure was in 2009, it may have been due to the gov dole for home heating & cooling. Or, Obama paying back his coal buddies

BTW, the great grandson of Teddy Roosevelt is at PEW at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_IV & c2es.org/about/board/roosevelt

The answer may be in the report itself, which I have not read. pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil…idiesFINAL.pdf

 

[Slaney]

Turn back to God, that will change the climate, no man made solution will, " some folks haven’t been reading their Bible."

 

[JamesCaruso]

Turn back to God, that will change the climate, no man made solution will, " some folks haven’t been reading their Bible."

I’m not so sure that is dead on. God leaves an awful lot up to man. Bad weather and threatening climate disasters are not necessarily “judgments” of God against mankind. Sometimes, they are just consequences of deleterious, but not sinful, behavior. For example, Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is not a sin unless you know it will do harm to the environment, By the same token, if CO2 is the culprit, and I’m not saying it is, if we stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere the problem may be solved.

By the way, I am not turned away from God, nor do I think are the majority of posters here, so be careful where you wave that finger. j/k I read my Bible and I have yet to find a formula for determining which weather condition is a judgment of God and which is just a normally occurring event with no spiritual significance other than one of the possible effects of Adam’s sin. If Pope Francis starts making the connection, however, my ears will perk up. Peace. PS-- I’d sure like to visit your country some day. I’m sure it’s every bit as beautiful as people say it is.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I should add that sometimes weather conditions are not related to what man does at all, they’re just natural occurrences. GW, for example, may not be a consequence of anything man has done, nor a judgment of God. No one knows for sure. Still, with the help of God, man may find solutions to such problems be they only natural in origin. .

 

[Slaney]

By the way, I am not turned away from God, nor do I think are the majority of posters here, so be careful where you wave that finger. j/k ** I read my Bible and I have yet to find a formula for determining which weather condition is a judgment of God and which is just a normally occurring event with no spiritual significance other than one of the possible effects of Adam’s sin. ** If Pope Francis starts making the connection, however, my ears will perk up. Peace. PS-- I’d sure like to visit your country some day. I’m sure it’s every bit as beautiful as people say it is.

I don’t believe the convulsion’s of the planet are all going to be cured by man who has rejected God, I’m not saying you have.

I was having a dig at your Presidents speech one time when he said " some folks haven’t been reading their Bibles "

Pope Francis making a connection would be a good marker, but remember some of the worlds visonary’s and prophets weren’t Popes, but lay people… whom some Popes consulted…

 

[JamesCaruso]

I don’t believe the convulsion’s of the planet are all going to be cured by man who has rejected God, I’m not saying you have.

I was having a dig at your Presidents speech one time when he said " some folks haven’t been reading their Bibles "

Pope Francis making a connection would be a good marker, but remember some of the worlds visonary’s and prophets weren’t Popes, but lay people… whom some Popes consulted…

That too

One way “God’s judgment” comes about is by our bringing it on ourselves by our actions or lack of action. Just looks what happens to each of us when we totally neglect our health with poor eating habits, lack of exercise, excessive drinking and smoking, drug use, etc. We can extend how we take care of ourselves to the community and world at large. What we do or don’t do has consequences.

Many private revelations have it that current disasters are judgments from God. I would never say, “No,” but by the same token, I don’t know for sure what is and what isn’t. I do place stock in Our Lady’s messages, such as Fatima, where she links people turning to God with a certain level of prosperity or well being for the community. Now somebody will ask, “Which revelation?” sending me scurrying off to find where I read that years ago. lol I think such a message was contained in the Fatima messages without actually going back to search for it.

 

[Slaney]

That too

Many private revelations have it that current disasters are judgments from God. I would never say, “No,” but by the same token, I don’t know for sure what is and what isn’t.

The Bible has plagues of locust etc; even in the Divine Mercy Revelations the angel was only stopped from visiting a certain city on earth by St Faustina reciting the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.
To think that God does not bring about a convulsion of nature is wishful thinking, He did it at the time of Noah, He still does it, but man in it’s scientific pride thinks it’s all hocus pocus.

And the experts who are telling us all this stuff can’t stop themselves from dying, can’t raise themselves from the dead, can’t cure the common cold…babylon revisted !!!