Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[ratsaj]

I would think that the Almighty is more concerned with obedience to His commandments,and for people to not usurp the natural order He established rather then them troubling about climate change.But I think the two,the offense against God and climate change concerns will be resolved.The global tsunami of filth and sin that is same sex marriage,homosexual rights,abortion and contraception on demand,scientific human life engineering,pervasive pornagraphy,drug use,greed,corruption,the exploitation and economic manipulation of the many by the few ,the widespread abuse of Holy Communion—yes this too calls down the wrath of God.The Hand of Divine Justice cannot be stayed much longer.The time for political and social argument and back fighting is over .People need to focus on immediate prayer for mercy,and make reparation now.Time is very short.I had a dream that very much frightened me.In the blink of an eye,imperceptible to the senses the world will change.No one will be prepared.The world will be in complete tumult and there will be but the fortunate in grace who survive.In my dream/vision I knew no one but we were completely shell shocked .I could account for only several others .I also had no family about me.I recognized nothing.This does not mean I will survive I just witnessed for I too offend God.The Justice of God will address the offense of humanity against Him and creation with nature.Blessed be God.

 

[SamH]

The USCCB wrote:

The dialogue and our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence. While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate. usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm

I was pretty much taking their, and others’, word for it. Also, I had had a discussion with a friend last year in which he showed me that all the major academies of science around the world endorsed man made climate change. I have long since forgotten what cites he had given me to look at, but it was convincing. When you asked for cites I had to start looking around. I thought the following was pretty impressive.

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Page 7 of 9 from the intermediate version of There is no consensus
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse
gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are
based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are
inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed
science.”

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science
Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

How many of them turned that endorsement into money?

 

[Ridgerunner]

How many of them turned that endorsement into money?

Interesting that the American Meterological Society endorses what its members do not. One wonders how much more of that there is. Probably it’s like the American Medical Asociation or the American Bar Association, both liberal-leaning organizations that do not include the majority of either profession and do not reflect the opinions of doctors or lawyers generally.

When Obama makes (as he promised) utility bills “skyrocket”, some poor people who can’t afford theirs will die. One wonders how the liberals are going to blame it on Bush, but they surely will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is invasive, taken over lots of California areas. But that was well before biologists were concerned about invasive species, and as mentioned it is a beautiful tree, gives shade, etc.

My mo-in-law in India had one in her yard, and she would put the leaves in her bath water. Great for colds and body aches. They eventually cut it down to do some more building, but left the stump, and for years (until her death) she could still pick the leaves from the twigs that grew out of the stump.

There is another invasive species I’m thinking that could help draw down carbon – but is it not carried by any vector, so it is just a matter of containing the perimeter. That is the MORINGA TREE. In its case the leaves and fruits can be used as food – which has a very high iron and calcium content, and helps produce much more milk in cows and lactating mothers. Native to India, it is now grown in many places for its food, esp Africa.

We have some in our backyard in S. Texas. It is an extremely soft “wood,” and grows some 30-40 feet high in a few years. If you cut it at the base, it just grows back. We had a killing freeze some years back and it died all the way down, then popped back up again in summer.

Scientists are experimenting with making biofuel from it. But I’m thinking it could also be used to make biochar thru pyrolysis, which could be used as a soil amendment for farmers and gardeners. In that way it would help draw down CO2 & store it in the soil for 100s or 1000s of years.

I’m all for biochar, but I am really dubious about introducing alien species into any environment. In my part of the country, we are cursed with multiflora rose and sericea lespedeza, both of which were introduced by government. Fortunately, our kudzu is not as bad as it is in the deep south, but it’s here, and government introduced and spread it as well.

Sometimes the ideas of the “best and brightest” are actually the “worst and dumbest”.

 

[Kevin_B]

No, not patently wrong. Have you heard about “climategate” in which scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics? And regarding funding - those in academia who oppose the global warming orthodoxy - who “come out” face the danger of losing their funding.

But they also face the possibility of getting millions of dollars in funding from oil companies that stand to make enormous amounts of money if the public can be convinced that global warming isn’t real. That’s how you can tell a good conspiracy theory: they quickly point out how the other side’s facts are flawed without realizing that the same flaws also apply to their facts.

The greenhouse effect was scientifically proven in a laboratory 150 years ago. We know CO2 warms the atmosphere. We know burning petroleum releases CO2. So is physically impossible for humans to NOT be warming the earth. Add that to the fact that the earth has been warming 10 times faster in the last hundred years than it has in millennia and it’s pretty obvious we have a serious problem

 

[SamH]

But they also face the possibility of getting millions of dollars in funding from oil companies that stand to make enormous amounts of money if the public can be convinced that global warming isn’t real.

Source that oil companies would begin funding the Climatic Research Unit if they debunked global warming claims?

 

[SamH]

The greenhouse effect was scientifically proven in a laboratory 150 years ago. We know CO2 warms the atmosphere. We know burning petroleum releases CO2. So is physically impossible for humans to NOT be warming the earth. Add that to the fact that the earth has been warming 10 times faster in the last hundred years than it has in millennia and it’s pretty obvious we have a serious problem

Actually we don’t know that.

naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

NASA actually proved CO2 causes cooling… CO2 causes the sun’s warming rays to be reflected back into space.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually we don’t know that.

naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

NASA actually proved CO2 causes cooling… CO2 causes the sun’s warming rays to be reflected back into space.

Oh No! Now Obama will have to come up with a different reason to make everything we use cost more than it should!

 

[JamesCaruso]

How many of them turned that endorsement into money?

That’s why I was impressed by the Catholic Church’s take on the controversy. It finds the consensus convincing enough to state that prudence demands we act based on the evidence accumulated to date. It’s sort of like the claims by tobacco companies that there was no causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. I wonder how many deaths were caused by those who believed that line of thinking, which the tobacco companies barraged us with in the face of all the evidence that had accumulated to the contrary?

As for endorsements for money, I have no doubt that the anti-climate-warming side is well funded by companies with vested interests, oil and coal companies, and those companies that would be heavily impacted cost-wise by a switch to alternative fuels.

 

[SamH]

Oh No! Now Obama will have to come up with a different reason to make everything we use cost more than it should!

Kind of explains why NASA is reduced to hitching rides on Russian rockets.

 

[SamH]

That’s why I was impressed by the Catholic Church’s take on the controversy. It finds the consensus convincing enough to state that prudence demands we act based on the evidence accumulated to date.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with this? I’ve seen where the Catholic Church states that mankind has a duty to be good stewards of the earth - but I’ve never seen an endorsement of the measures Obama is proposing. Do you have a link that shows the Catholic Church is all in for higher energy and food prices?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Agreed, but what does that have to do with this? I’ve seen where the Catholic Church states that mankind has a duty to be good stewards of the earth - but I’ve never seen an endorsement of the measures Obama is proposing. Do you have a link that shows the Catholic Church is all in for higher energy and food prices?

You may get some answers here. catholicclimatecovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Primer-on-Catholic-Teaching-on-Climate-Change.pdf

Naturally, in dealing with such a problem, all of the attendant difficulties and ramifications must be taken into consideration. It’s not just solve one problem and forget about the rest, or ignore the creation of any new problems in the solution. What it is is one more item in the basket of world needs that must be addressed, and addressed in a way that results in the overall best outcomes. I think what the Bishops and the Vatican are saying is that to ignore the problem is not an option. .

 

[Ridgerunner]

You may get some answers here. catholicclimatecovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Primer-on-Catholic-Teaching-on-Climate-Change.pdf

Naturally, in dealing with such a problem, all of the attendant difficulties and ramifications must be taken into consideration. It’s not just solve one problem and forget about the rest, or ignore the creation of any new problems in the solution. What it is is one more item in the basket of world needs that must be addressed, and addressed in a way that results in the overall best outcomes. I think what the Bishops and the Vatican are saying is that to ignore the problem is not an option. .

looking up your citation, I see that the USCCB said the following:

“In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily
dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full
certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.”

In other words, “lots of people say climate change is happening, though it isn’t certain that it is. If it’s a real threat with serious consequences, we can’t ignore it. And if it’s real, we ought to do something about it.”

About as uncertain a statement as one could possibly imagine, short of saying nothing at all. And definitely it does not attribute “climate change” if it exists, to CO2 emissions. Other things, even other human activities or non-activities can cause it, and I mentioned one previously; ongoing desertification of most of the land surface.

And, of course, the USCCB does not mandate that we, as Catholics, support Obama’s increasing utility rates; rates that will fall most heavily on the poor.

 

[JamesCaruso]

looking up your citation, I see that the USCCB said the following:

“In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily
dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full
certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.”

In other words, “lots of people say climate change is happening, though it isn’t certain that it is. If it’s a real threat with serious consequences, we can’t ignore it. And if it’s real, we ought to do something about it.”

About as uncertain a statement as one could possibly imagine, short of saying nothing at all. And definitely it does not attribute “climate change” if it exists, to CO2 emissions. Other things, even other human activities or non-activities can cause it, and I mentioned one previously; ongoing desertification of most of the land surface.

And, of course, the USCCB does not mandate that we, as Catholics, support Obama’s increasing utility rates; rates that will fall most heavily on the poor.

Ridgerunner, the Bishops also said the following in the same statement:

While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate. Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious (see the sidebar “The Science of Global Climate Change”).** Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.**

This is more than “if it’s real, we ought to do something about it.” This is a call for action to now mitigate possible negative effects in the future.

Stating that “receding glaciers require urgent responses,” a working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has called upon nations to “reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system.”

Can a conscientious person simply shrug it all off deferring to a time in the future when we have established a clear causal relationship, like we did with tobacco smoking. There are plenty of studies, and their is consensus of most scientists. I cannot ignore all the Academies of Science around the world, unless it can be shown that they are participating in a gigantic conspiracy to perpetuate a terrible lie, and to use their scientific studies to prove it. How do you get such lockstep among so many professionals with advanced degrees in so many countries and out of so many cultures?

If utility rates are your main concern, then I am sure there is a way to mitigate the effect on the poor. I cannot believe that Providence would mandate destruction of the earth to feed the poor. I believe God is telling us to take care of both the poor and the earth, and He will help us with both.

 

[lynnvinc]

One was to delve deeper than Fox News or politicians espousing a view that is really an opposition to the other political party. The USCCB’s statement is well thought out; you don’t have to believe it, but you should read it. They have no dog in the fight that I know of, whereas, the politicians do. And what about the endorsement of all the academies of science around the world? Surely, their opinion counts for something. The idea that global warming is being used as a play for more government and socialism is a valid one, but it does not mean that global warming is a scam, it just means that it is being used to further an unrelated cause. The cause of free enterprise and democracy could be furthered if anyone was interested in pursuing it. It could be that there are corporations exerting influence against the case for global warming because it means loss of dollars to them if we move away from fossil fuels. I don’t know-- I’m just saying.

The evidence is not enough to prove it with absolute certainty, but the evidence seems far more in favor of the proposition than against it. The more I read, the thinner the argument against man-made global warming becomes. You can’t always wait until you have 100% conclusive evidence before you act on something that has so much scientific evidence in support of it, especially when the risk is so high. Please don’t ask me to cite all the studies. As I was looking around the net, I found that it was full of global warming studies. They are no secret.

Good, reasoned post.

But I do have to ask how is saving money – which is what we’ve been doing hand over fist since we started mitigating AGW in 1990, now down 60%+ GHG emissions reduction, and without lowering living standards, even increasing them a bit – linked to socialism; if the gov could prod more people to go down our path, then they’d have more money to donate to charities or buy food and medicine for their kids, etc.

Also going off the grid with solar and/or wind or small hydel projects (if one has a stream on one’s land) is NOT losing one’s freedom. I’d say it is gaining freedom.

It is the skeptics who want to keep us addicted to oil and coal, who are promoting an oligarcy of the rich and powerful multinational corps…which is just as bad as socialism, I’d think.

 

[ishii]

One was to delve deeper than Fox News or politicians espousing a view that is really an opposition to the other political party. The USCCB’s statement is well thought out; you don’t have to believe it, but you should read it. They have no dog in the fight that I know of, whereas, the politicians do. et.

This part of your post to me calls into question your analysis. First, the way you insult people with opinions that differ from your own - “any opinion that differs from my superior well thought out opinion must be the product of a partisan news station like Fox news.” The USCCB has not dog in the fight? The USCCB is arguably full of liberal Democrats who generally take the liberal Democrat line on environment/economic/war issues - and only oppose the Democrats on social issues, albeit reluctantly. That you would not see the reality of this bias of the USCCB calls into question your ability to see the reality on other issues…

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Good, reasoned post.

LOL.

But I do have to ask how is saving money – which is what we’ve been doing hand over fist since we started mitigating AGW in 1990, now down 60%+ GHG emissions reduction, and without lowering living standards, even increasing them a bit – linked to socialism;*** if the gov ***could prod more people to go down our path, then they’d have more money to donate to charities or buy food and medicine for their kids, etc.

If the government… (fill in the blank). If there is truly a good reason to invest in non-fossil fuel kinds of energy then the market will take care of that. As it is, we have the government investing hundreds of millions in failed “green energy” initiatives. But I guess that’s okay as the recipients of those millions also donated to Democrats…

Also going off the grid with solar and/or wind or small hydel projects (if one has a stream on one’s land) is NOT losing one’s freedom. I’d say it is gaining freedom.

Hey if you can harness the wind or hydraulic power then go for it. My state benefits a great deal from dams. But that is different from the green energy initiatives, aka: “fund the Obama campaign.”

It is the skeptics who want to keep us addicted to oil and coal, who are promoting an oligarcy of the rich and powerful multinational corps…which is just as bad as socialism, I’d think.

Let the market decide. If it works, the market will reward those who invest in these supposed new kinds of energy. You seem to embrace an ideology that pits the “altruistic benign government” (led by Obama of course), against the “evil corporations”.

Ishii

 

[Linda_Marie]

Actually we don’t know that.

naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

NASA actually proved CO2 causes cooling… CO2 causes the sun’s warming rays to be reflected back into space.

From another source - and it came out in March so Obama should have been appraised of this rather dramatic discovery by his NASA climate program advisors.

principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

NASA’s Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists’ computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

Another benefit from increased CO2:
Benefits to Plants
plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=225

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air’s CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today’s CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth’s natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.

**
Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener**
agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml
31 May 2013

Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, the Bishops also said the following in the same statement:

While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate. Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious (see the sidebar “The Science of Global Climate Change”).** Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.**

This is more than “if it’s real, we ought to do something about it.” This is a call for action to now mitigate possible negative effects in the future.

Stating that “receding glaciers require urgent responses,” a working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has called upon nations to “reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system.”

Can a conscientious person simply shrug it all off deferring to a time in the future when we have established a clear causal relationship, like we did with tobacco smoking. There are plenty of studies, and their is consensus of most scientists. I cannot ignore all the Academies of Science around the world, unless it can be shown that they are participating in a gigantic conspiracy to perpetuate a terrible lie, and to use their scientific studies to prove it. How do you get such lockstep among so many professionals with advanced degrees in so many countries and out of so many cultures?

If utility rates are your main concern, then I am sure there is a way to mitigate the effect on the poor. I cannot believe that Providence would mandate destruction of the earth to feed the poor. I believe God is telling us to take care of both the poor and the earth, and He will help us with both.

There are so many qualifiers in these statements that if one had a dollar for every one…

One does notice that they recommend further study.

One notes that they don’t specifically mention burning fossil fuels. Nor do they mention the effect of desertification and urban heat sinks. Nor do they mention that the temps have not warmed in 15 years. Nor do they mention the NASA study mentioned by other posters. Certainly, if there is GW and if it’s manmade, and if it’s harmful, and if there’s anything anybody can do about it, and if it can be done without undue harm…

And in light of the fact that this administration has done absolutely nothing for the poor, does anybody really believe its causing “utility bills to skyrocket” will suddenly result in its noticing that there are poor people who can’t afford that? Unrealistic.

As you surely know, at one time there were “scientific studies” that supposedly “proved” that cigarette smoking not only does not cause cancer, but actually prevented it. Was that a gigantic conspiracy, or was it simply a lot of people getting on the kind of bandwagon that paid to be on it?

 

[JamesCaruso]

This part of your post to me calls into question your analysis. First, the way you insult people with opinions that differ from your own - “any opinion that differs from my superior well thought out opinion must be the product of a partisan news station like Fox news.” The USCCB has not dog in the fight? The USCCB is arguably full of liberal Democrats who generally take the liberal Democrat line on environment/economic/war issues - and only oppose the Democrats on social issues, albeit reluctantly. That you would not see the reality of this bias of the USCCB calls into question your ability to see the reality on other issues…

Ishii

Well, I am sorry you take what I wrote as an insult. I’d like you to know that Fox News is my favorite channel bar none, and not just the news portion. I’ve got to stop staying up so late to catch Hannity, Greta, and Bill O’Reilly (I am often unable to catch the early broadcast of O’Reilly at 8 PM EDT). For what’s it’s worth, I don’t believe I have ever viewed a complete program on MSNBC or other liberal media.

On the USCCB, I mean that the Catholic Church does not stand to gain financially from its advocacy. This is also true of the Vatican whose Pontifical Academy of Science groups are much more committed to the mitigation of global warming than the Bishops seem to be. You may be guilty of insulting the intelligence of the Bishops of the American Catholic Church to suggest that they would adopt a moral position based on a political party’s position. I think you need to keep an open mind, as I myself intend to do, on this increasingly important topic, and to read both sides of the issue, and not just the conservative side as I have done for so many years. I find no solace in the fact that it cannot be proven incontrovertibly that human activity is responsible for the dramatic increase in global warming.

Global warming controversy
Main article: Global warming controversy

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[175][176] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.[citation needed]

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[177][178] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.[citation needed]

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence, argued that global warming will have benefits, and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[179]Climate change - Wikipedia

Also:

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[74][208] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 -2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge , found that among those which expressed a position on the cause of global warming in their abstract, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.[209] In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 American scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[210][211] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.[212] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming