S
stinkcat_14
Guest
We know that social security redistributes income from the poor to the wealthy. Are you saying that cap and trade does the same thing?Given your passionate rants against SS, I doubt I will be able to.
- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
When capitalism uplifts the poor, socialists call it greed.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Consider this chart:
longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
You can see from the long term trends that our current temperatures are consistent with previous cycles. The alarmists are wrong.
M
Micosil
Guest
Please!
That “chart” at the end of the article doesn’t even have a vertical scale for temperature; what is “warm”, “very warm”, “cold” and “very cold”?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Let’s assume you are right. Only about 1% of Americans are socialists, so why should we care what they think?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
It’s relative. The point is that the earth warms and cools in cycles. Always has and always will. The earth was much warmer than today in 1200 AD, and much cooler in 1750 AD.Please!
The current warming trend is completely consistent with previous trends.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
??? The data, the actual temperatures do not support the AGW models, those models are wrong in terms of how man produced CO2 affects the environment. How can you accept as fact something which isn’t supported by the data. When the models based on that theory are continuously proven to be wrong?
The various ‘solutions’ to the problem, which again, is predicted by the models but not supported by the actual data, will levy costs not on you and I, but on future generations. My kids, my grandkids, since the US is so heavily in debt that the costs of providing substantial investments as well as grants/interest free loans/subsidies will be paid by them. It’s immoral for me to saddle future generations with that cost.
Sorry, just the manipulation of the data in this field makes it suspect. Whole groups of sensors in Northern Canada and Russia dropped at various points. Replacement of actual data with extrapolated data instead. Curiously, that methodology only applied at a particular point in time forward, not retroactively to ensure a consistent methodology. Same thing in South America-- Andes temperature stations dropped and replaced with extrapolated data based on temperatures in the Amazon. Heat corrections in South America, supposedly to account for ‘heat island’ and urbanization, adjusted up, vice down- exact opposite of what one should expect based on the rationale. Models which when fed completely randomized data show a temperature increase accelerating in later years. The whole ‘hide the decline’ batch of emails with collusion to suppress contradictory information. Researchers unable, or refusing to provide methodologies and approaches along their work to be duplicated and validated. The IPCC including statements found to be sourced to one quote in a magazine. etc. etc. etc.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Since we have a free press and have had one longer than most countries, almost anything can find its way into a British newspaper.May I ask if you have followed and systemically reviewed the scientific evidence in support of MMGW (and the data in contradiction to that premise). Or do you accept the scientific consensus? I only ask because that is all I did for about 15 years.
What is so ironical is that I found some of the most powerful skeptical arguments in two or three articles at the BBC and the Daily Telegraph websites (I presume the authors were of course supported by American fossil fuel interests and needless to say Republicans) .
In 1695 Parliament permitted the Licensing Act, which Charles II had passed in 1662, to lapse. England (followed by Scotland) became by the early eighteenth century among the few states where “information circulated freely", according to the historian L. Dudley, with the result being that “the British press became among the freest in the world, with a vibrant market of political journals, pamphlets and newspapers” .This freedom in the press is not, however, a good barometer of the views of the general public, society and politics as a whole precisely because it is so liberal.
In terms of the science behind MMGW, I would not presume to have intimate knowledge in this regard. I have researched the issue thoroughly and often discussed it with my brother (who is an environmental scientist with a bachelors and masters degree in this area), so I think I am pretty well informed as far as laymen go.
To be honest though, as I am not a scientist I do not wish to get bogged down in the nitty-gritty specifics of something for which I am not qualified to comment on. I do believe in MMGW and support the scientific consensus. Like the pope I would however be willing to use that scientific evidence to extrapolate moral and philosophical ramifications.
M
Micosil
Guest
As I said in the other post, these two articles are useful:
theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change
io9.com/global-warming-hiatus-doesnt-mean-that-temperatures-s-1636344544
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
More importantly-- the models based on man made CO2 being a significant cause to the current warming predicted a much higher increase given the CO2 being emitted. Ergo, they are wrong in, at the least, the quantitative impact that CO2 has on the environment.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
My cousin is a physicist. He believes in global warming. He also believes in the US military industrial complex. (ironically though virulently opposed to it he makes his money off it too)
I am not a scientist either, nor do I to be honest wish to get bogged down in the nitty-gritty specifics of something I am not qualified to understand. In my opinion, the Pope as the Vicar of Christ deals in truth, not scientific consensus. The Church has a clear position on environmental responsibility with or without MMGW. Hopefully the encyclical makes that clear.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
established science… if only that were true…
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Forget it though. Obama and his chronies know how to hijack the media and get into the subconscious but worth the effort
M
marymary1975
Guest
The Pope is not American he is Argentinian. College degrees do not exist in Argentina, little less junior College degrees because in Argentina (and in all Latinoamerica) there is no such thing as a “College”. You are trying to adapt a US educational figure to a place that the figure doesn’t exist. So no he doesn’t have and couldn’t have obtained a junior college degree because that doesn’t exist in Argentina. He graduated as a Chemist and did work even after entering to the Jesuits as a technician in Chemistry. Maybe that is where American assume is a College degree because he worked as a technician but that is an incorrect assumption because the educational system is completely different.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Indeed, we already do have a clear position on environmental responsibility (I’m not sure enough people know this however, if only more read the works of St. Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor, on the great chain of being)
Yet we also had a clear position on the poor and the sinfulness of defrauding workers of their just wages (being as it is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance) in 1891 when Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Novarum: explaining, clarifying, expanding and adapting this teaching further in light of developments in the world due to industralization. Pope Francis is doing something similar with environmental protection in light of scientific advancements. He is fulfilling his duty as the moral conscience of the world in responding to the needs of society today from the rich storehouse of the church’s perennial wisdom encoded in Sacred Tradition, which is - to quote St. Augustine speaking in relation to God - "beauty of ancient days, yet ever new".
U
ucfengr
Guest
I remember when the “established science” on gastric ulcers was that they were caused by stress, smoking, and spicy food. Now, we know that was wrong and that most gastric ulcers are caused by the H. pylori bacteria.
webmd.com/digestive-disorders/h-pylori-helicobacter-pylori
We’re also discovering the a large part of the “established science” on diet and nutrition is wrong. For example, eating fat doesn’t make you fat and eating cholesterol doesn’t give you high cholesterol.
Why should we hold the “established science” on man-made global warming in any higher regard, when so much of what it predicts doesn’t come to fruition?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
The remedies to this non crisis will truly harm the poor.
Poor people need available, affordable energy. The best sources of energy today are fossil fuels. CO2 is plant food, not pollution. It is the leftists who have turned this vital component of life into a pollutant.
It is not the moral course, even if his intentions are good.
I
ishii
Guest
estesbob, the truth usually hurts - I can speak from experience. I think what we are witnessing is people reacting to the pain of the realization that their excuses are shallow and devoid of logic and reason.
Ishii
B
Book_Worm
Guest
Yes, if only 100% of all scientists believed it! instead of a mere 97%.
And I’m sure the fact that Koch Industries is one of the top three air and water polluters in the U.S. has nothing at all to do with their support of anti-environment candidates.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
What remedies did the pope propose?
- Status