S
SamH
Guest
Care to guess when most of the warming took place in the last century?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Not a guess:Care to guess when most of the warming took place in the last century?
Since the early 20th century, Earth’s mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As between Wikipedia and the sources mentioned in Post 169, I would say the latter are more worthy of credence. If the Post 169 sources are credited, they are a serious challenge to the whole MMGW theory at minimum, and debunk it at maximum.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
But no matter what, MMGW is not without its credible challengers. The Obama administration is willing to impose a significant economic burden on those least able to afford it, and to impair the U.S. economy for the sake of the MMGW theory. I believe thinking Catholics should be much more circumspect about it. After all, Obama is doing what he’s doing for campaign money and doesn’t show in his own life that he believes in MMGW.
J
JimG
Guest
Has anyone in the environmental sciences calculated what effect widespread decline in fertility rates—now underway and increasing—or even a demographic winter, will have on global climate?
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
We’ll just have to wait and see. The new discoveries may or may not live up to their billing, and it might also mean that the premise of MMGW is still true, but that the mechanism attributed to causing it is false. I certainly hope that MMGW is not true, as it will avoid a lot of needless mega-expense, but so many studies I doubt will fall beneath the weight of this single one by NASA. I can only hope that I am wrong.As between Wikipedia and the sources mentioned in Post 169, I would say the latter are more worthy of credence. If the Post 169 sources are credited, they are a serious challenge to the whole MMGW theory at minimum, and debunk it at maximum.
But no matter what, MMGW is not without its credible challengers. The Obama administration is willing to impose a significant economic burden on those least able to afford it, and to impair the U.S. economy for the sake of the MMGW theory. I believe thinking Catholics should be much more circumspect about it. After all, Obama is doing what he’s doing for campaign money and doesn’t show in his own life that he believes in MMGW.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
I’m not claiming they do. I’m just saying that assuming oil companies will pay money to climate change deniers with no evidence to back you up makes just as much sense as assuming scientists will fake data for grant money with no evidence to back you up. There is no reason to believe one and not the other unless you want to prove your previously defined position.Source that oil companies would begin funding the Climatic Research Unit if they debunked global warming claims?
You have fallen into the trap of our terrible, terrible media. Instead of just giving us the news, they interpret it for us, and we just pick the news site that we agree with and assume all of their interpretations are correct.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.
See? Here is another website that happens to agree with my previous position on global warming that makes a completely different claim about the same data.
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
I’m sure you, like most people including myself, will find a reason as to why you think the website who agrees with your previous opinion interpreted the data better than the website which agreed with my previous opinion.
i personally agree with my website because i, unlike the people who wrote your article, understand the science behind atmospheric CO2. We have known that for decades. The fact that your article’s author believes this is new information proves he has little to no knowledge of atmospheric science.
Atmospheric CO2 reflects heat both ways. The thing is, even though it reflects more heat coming in, it only does that once. The heat coming off the earth gets reflected numerous times. That’s why CO2 has an overall warming effect instead of an overall cooling effect, because it protects the earth from heat only once, while it reflects the rest of the heat back to earth numerous times.
S
SamH
Guest
Agreed - so why endorse Obama’s simplistic approach that fails to take into account the issues his proposals cause?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. .
S
SamH
Guest
I’m supposed to take that website seriously?I’m not claiming they do. I’m just saying that assuming oil companies will pay money to climate change deniers with no evidence to back you up makes just as much sense as assuming scientists will fake data for grant money with no evidence to back you up. There is no reason to believe one and not the other unless you want to prove your previously defined position.
You have fallen into the trap of our terrible, terrible media. Instead of just giving us the news, they interpret it for us, and we just pick the news site that we agree with and assume all of their interpretations are correct.
See? Here is another website that happens to agree with my previous position on global warming that makes a completely different claim about the same data.
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
.
S
SamH
Guest
Actually we do have evidence to back up the claim that scientist are faking research for the global warming dollars. They state as much in the leaked email scandle.I’m not claiming they do. I’m just saying that assuming oil companies will pay money to climate change deniers with no evidence to back you up makes just as much sense as assuming scientists will fake data for grant money with no evidence to back you up.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I’m not a scientist, but wouldn’t a finding that Carbon Dioxide “cools” the atmosphere, be just as damaging as the prior reports that it heats the atmosphere? Cools or heats, it still points to man-made global climate change, which everyone should find disturbing. But beyond this, I doubt any single finding will have the last word. With all the studies that have been done, it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that something is terribly wrong, and it’s more than can be attributed to natural cyclical changes, unless the last hundred years is an atypical aberration. Common sense tells me that allowing mindless economic forces to determine energy policy is not a responsible path to follow, unless, of course, the preponderance of evidence points to the falsity of MMGW. I urge people not to take sides, but to demand the strictest standards of study and evaluation from the scientific community.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
S
SamH
Guest
But the earth is getting warmer. Wouldn’t it prove that a trace gas is still a trace gas when it comes to changing the earth’s atmosphere?I’m not a scientist, but wouldn’t a finding that Carbon Dioxide “cools” the atmosphere, be just as damaging as the prior reports that it heats the atmosphere? Cools or heats, it still points to man-made global climate change, which everyone should find disturbing.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It truly does amaze me that no one notices that the big political promoters of MMGW don’t act as if they believe in it.Actually we do have evidence to back up the claim that scientist are faking research for the global warming dollars. They state as much in the leaked email scandle.
Obama takes a vacation in Africa, requiring shipment of 54 heavily armored, gas-hog vehicles, a bevy of trucks to carry bulletproof glass around for every window he’ll ever walk past, a fleet of ships to carry all that stuff, jumbo jets to carry him and his staff and reporters, and round-the-clock jet fighter coverage overhead, and he wants to make some old lady in North Dakota’s heat bill go up for the sake of MMGW?
And nobody notices any of this? Nobody thinks maybe there’s something fundamentally wrong with the picture?
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
What Obama or any politician believes does not matter to me. What scientists believe does. Whether MMGW is true or false, many politicians will try to make political hay out of it.It truly does amaze me that no one notices that the big political promoters of MMGW don’t act as if they believe in it.
Obama takes a vacation in Africa, requiring shipment of 54 heavily armored, gas-hog vehicles, a bevy of trucks to carry bulletproof glass around for every window he’ll ever walk past, a fleet of ships to carry all that stuff, jumbo jets to carry him and his staff and reporters, and round-the-clock jet fighter coverage overhead, and he wants to make some old lady in North Dakota’s heat bill go up for the sake of MMGW?
And nobody notices any of this? Nobody thinks maybe there’s something fundamentally wrong with the picture?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps it ought to matter when the promulgator of regulations that will make your utility bills “skyrocket” doesn’t act as if he believes it himself. One then has to wonder why we have been sold the idea that everybody, and most especially those who can least afford it, are being called upon to pay more for everything from heat to everything they buy at the grocery store, and perhaps lose jobs to boot. Is it really that important to the political promoters of MMGW to get campaign money and lucrative speaking engagements from the ideologically-driven environmentalists; money those groups get from the people they scare with all of this Chicken Little talk? Apparently it is.What Obama or any politician believes does not matter to me. What scientists believe does. Whether MMGW is true or false, many politicians will try to make hay out of it.
And we’re stupid enough to lay down and let them do it.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Ridgerunner,Perhaps it ought to matter when the promulgator of regulations that will make your utility bills “skyrocket” doesn’t act as if he believes it himself. One then has to wonder why we have been sold the idea that everybody, and most especially those who can least afford it, are being called upon to pay more for everything from heat to everything they buy at the grocery store, and perhaps lose jobs to boot. Is it really that important to the political promoters of MMGW to get campaign money and lucrative speaking engagements from the ideologically-driven environmentalists; money those groups get from the people they scare with all of this Chicken Little talk? Apparently it is.
And we’re stupid enough to lay down and let them do it.
Whether or not our utility bills go up is not the issue. Whether or not the policy is reasonably based on the scientific data is the important thing. If the policy is reasonable, and if it causes hardship to the poor, then the poor should also be addressed, and relief provided to them. But hardship should never be the criteria for doing the right thing. Do the right thing and protect the poor from harm at the same time. If one believes the President’s policies are not consistent with the scientific data, then one should oppose the policies on that basis, not on the fallout to the poor.
Unless one can prove a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth by all the Academies of Science around the world, it seems prudent to me to act on the side of caution. If the scientific community is right, the outcome of inaction will be far greater than the impact on taxpayers and utility bill payers. The task of those who don’t believe the data is to bring forth the data that disproves it. If the NASA study is that data, then go for it. But if it is not as significant as it was purported to be, I think the cause is lost, at least for the time being.
The rhetoric is tiring. Data is needed. The policy should rise or fall on the basis of scientific facts.
Peace. James
L
lynnvinc
Guest
They have a correlation btw CO2 & warming going back millions of years AND they have a solid theory (not hypothesis) based on the laws of physics. And that is what science requires, not just data, but theory as well. You really ought to ready about global warming, perhaps starting with the history of how it was discovered, and also the state of the art today. There are plenty of books on the topic. CAF is not the place to post entire books.When they figure it out let us know. So far they have a correlation of increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures that lasted about 15 years, then the correlation stopped and the “science” can’t figure out why.
Your idea that climate scientists are a bunch of nincompoops who know next to nothing, and have hardly any data at all, and no solid theories is bordering on…
I’m not a climate scientist, but if you want to discuss the matter with them, I can put you in touch with some. Just be sure to read their articles and books first.
J
JimG
Guest
Whether or not utility bills go up certainly IS an issue for those who are trying to make ends meet, for those who are living on the edge, for those who will see skyrocketing utility rates force them into poverty.Ridgerunner,
Whether or not our utility bills go up is not the issue. Whether or not the policy is reasonably based on the scientific data is the important thing. If the policy is reasonable, and if it causes hardship to the poor, then the poor should also be addressed, and relief provided to them. But hardship should never be the criteria for doing the right thing. Do the right thing and protect the poor from harm at the same time. If one believes the President’s policies are not consistent with the scientific data, then one should oppose the policies on that basis, not on the fallout to the poor.
Unless one can prove a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth by all the Academies of Science around the world, it seems prudent to me to act on the side of caution. If the scientific community is right, the outcome of inaction will be far greater than the impact on taxpayers and utility bill payers. The task of those who don’t believe the data is to bring forth the data that disproves it. If the NASA study is that data, then go for it. But if it is not as significant as it was purported to be, I think the cause is lost, at least for the time being.
The rhetoric is tiring. Data is needed. The policy should rise or fall on the basis of scientific facts.
Peace. James
It will be even more of an issue if it forces the government to borrow even more to help those adversely affected by skyrocketing utility rates. It will make the debt even more unsustainable, probably bursting the debt bubble and throwing the nation into economic depression.
And it certainly will be an issue to all the thousands of workers employed in the coal industry whose jobs are targeted for termination by this administration. Maybe they will at least be allowed to export coal to China.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You said it right. The statement was from 2001, and perhaps it is unfortunate that they even used the word “uncertainty,” since the skeptics are glomming onto as an excuse to do nothing. It seems since it is the product of all the bishops, there may have been some, like our skeptics here, who were more skeptical than the others, and as a bow to them they used the phrase re some uncertainty remaining.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?
I totally disagree that raising the prices of oil and coal (or better yet just taking away their enormous subsidies and tax-breaks – which I’m paying for on April 15th) will necessarily harm the poor. If it make people wake up and make a sincere effort into looking for energy/resource conservation/efficiency measures it it a dead certainty, completely certain, they can actually reduce their energy costs and other costs, as well, without freezing in the dark and without lower their living standards, and even increasing them. IF – that is the only issue. Plenty of savings are there to be had even with increased fossil fuel prices; they just have to look for them.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.
R
rlg94086
Guest
No worries, Jim. His New Climate Plan will probably be like his old climate plan. He’ll help a bunch of people get employment in the new energy field…for a little while. When those tax-payer funded companies fail, again, the workers will be out of work, again. It’s a circle of political life thing…Whether or not utility bills go up certainly IS an issue for those who are trying to make ends meet, for those who are living on the edge, for those who will see skyrocketing utility rates force them into poverty.
It will be even more of an issue if it forces the government to borrow even more to help those adversely affected by skyrocketing utility rates. It will make the debt even more unsustainable, probably bursting the debt bubble and throwing the nation into economic depression.
And it certainly will be an issue to all the thousands of workers employed in the coal industry whose jobs are targeted for termination by this administration. Maybe they will at least be allowed to export coal to China.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I’ve always thought that Obama is for getting all the benefits that he can get out of the Presidency. I am much more in tune with Bush’s giving up of golf after we became engaged in war. Obama OTOH never seems to miss an opportunity to squeeze as much privilege as he can out of his position. This rubs me the wrong way. The same for Al Gore and his jetting around the earth preaching against the very things he himself is guilty of doing. Very wealthy and very powerful people are often out of touch. Can we ever forget John Keary driving up to a labor union rally in his chauffeured Rolls Royce?Perhaps it ought to matter when the promulgator of regulations that will make your utility bills “skyrocket” doesn’t act as if he believes it himself. One then has to wonder why we have been sold the idea that everybody, and most especially those who can least afford it, are being called upon to pay more for everything from heat to everything they buy at the grocery store, and perhaps lose jobs to boot. Is it really that important to the political promoters of MMGW to get campaign money and lucrative speaking engagements from the ideologically-driven environmentalists; money those groups get from the people they scare with all of this Chicken Little talk? Apparently it is.
And we’re stupid enough to lay down and let them do it.
But
- just because I might not like Obama,
- just because I might think he is more comfortable with lying than with telling the truth,
- just because I believe he might be more interested in his personal lifestyle than in what is happening to average Americans,
- just because I believe he might be ruthless in his politics,
- just because I believe he might be using the poor and the black, pro-choice, labor union, and gay communities to satisfy his lust for power,
- just because I might believe his highest aspiration is not for the American people but for the chance at becoming ruler of the world in a one world government scenario, for example, under the United Nations or some such governing body,
- just because I have little use for Obama as a human being, and
- just because for the first time in my adult life I might be ashamed to be an American,
I do not believe Obama’s policies should be judged on anything other than their individual merit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.