C
Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change
- Status
M
Mountain_Spirit
Guest
“Climate Change” is just another word for “Population Reduction” or “Population Control”. You will notice that almost everyone who is a big proponent of “Climate Change” is soft on the right-to-life. They hardly ever mention the holocaust surgical abortions (125,000 killed worldwide each day), they never mention the sin of chemical abortions (10 times that number of surgical abortions) and they never mention sin of contraception (beyond counting, “everybody does it” ) and they never ever mention the natural causes of climatic warming and cooling and that the earth has undergone. Sadly the current person who sits in the chair of Peter fits the above description.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Per my agreement with Ender I am obliged to point out that this is a poor argument for global warming. It is an unjustified and uncharitable denigration of the motives of your opponents in this debate. I know the temptation to demonize your opponents can be great, but I also know you can do better than this.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Show me that stats. I am unconvinced of this point.
Do you really have to dump on the pope to justify your particular opinion on science?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That depends on what is the point of the argument. If we are arguing about the moral character of that particular person, then such considerations are very relevant. If we are arguing about the scientific truths of climate change, it is not relevant. This thread is about climate change and its consequences. The fact that you find someone who might be using climate change to advance an immoral end does not bear on this discussion, and is hence a red herring.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, nature is very complex. But the vast majority of that complexity has no bearing on the questions we are asking about climate change. The weather is indeed complex and there is much we don’t know. But we do know enough about it to safely fly jet airplanes around it and keep almost all of them from getting into trouble. You see, we don’t need to understand every last bit of nature to answer some questions. And global warming is one of those questions.
J
JW55
Guest
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. We observe changes over a short run. We hypothesize that it is caused by Greenhouse gases, etc. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. But to identify it as fact, I feel is a far reach, There just isn’t proof that this isn’t just a pattern of the Earth’s very nature itself. Should we continue to observe. Yes. Further study. Yes.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The temperature pattern of the last 20,000 years is quite strong evidence that the warming of the last 100 years is not a natural pattern, due to its suddenness. Nothing natural in history has ever been that sudden, except possibly for the big bang. And I’m not expecting another one of those and time soon. Are you?
What is the point of further study, if you are going to discount every observation as just some unknown force of nature?
P
Paganus
Guest
Well that’s a fine sentiment “the promotion of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption”, but that goal does meet the SMART criteria. Let’s get back in that conference room and come out with something a little more specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related.
U
ucfengr
Guest
It would be, if we had reliable data for the past 20,000 years. We really only have reliable data for, to be generous, 50 years. The rest falls under the category of a SWAG.
Of course, to get back to the Pope’s comments, saying “we must do something” isn’t very useful. It’s only when you get specific can you actually weigh the cost and benefits.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Prudence is good in its PLACE …
… but what’s needed now is DISPATCH!
THISfast!
youtube.com/watch?v=dJ_UwY5_dMY
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqCjgzID6zpsi8h3NVNDZaP-6grKxjfjwREYE7yt5_I9oo_8A7KpsMcgQ
:tanning: - What a nice day! Thank you Lord!
… but what’s needed now is DISPATCH!
THISfast!
youtube.com/watch?v=dJ_UwY5_dMY
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqCjgzID6zpsi8h3NVNDZaP-6grKxjfjwREYE7yt5_I9oo_8A7KpsMcgQ
:tanning: - What a nice day! Thank you Lord!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Some 25 years ago we had an environmental committee at our parish and I wrote up “The Little Way of Environmental Healing” based on St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, as I had just entered the 3rd order of Carmel, OCDS in 1989 – the same year I became very concerned about environmental problems.lynnvinc. You said in post 179 . . . .
Excellent suggestions.
I know I don’t always agree with you on these Global Warming issues, but on that post of yours (and those insightful comments), I think they were gold.
Thanks for your vision in this area.
I hope now that I’m retired to start another such group in the parish where we live now, once my husband finishes his research project next year.
THE LITTLE WAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALING
We are faced with enormous environmental problems that harm and kill people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.
St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.
St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.
What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.
We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, just as Jesus multiplied the fish & loaves. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and honors. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.
J
jediliz
Guest
that is my biggest concern - that Pope Francis does NOT realize that a LOT of these climate change believers push population control methods (like sterilizing and contraception) because of the belief in the carbon footprint nonsense.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you look at how many ways the pre-historical reconstructions are cross-checked for consistency you will see it is much more than SWAG. There is no serious debate over those reconstructions, even among the outlier scientists that are skeptical of global warming.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I am quite certain that our Pope knows all about them. But he also knows that most of those who understand climate change as a fact are not part of the population control movement. It would be like eschewing white bedsheets because the KKK uses them too.
J
JW55
Guest
I work in a scientific environment and have dealt with environmental regulations for over 40 yrs. I am not a novice or uneducated in these matters. I am not just an interested party. I Deal with environmental affairs on a daily basis. I have testified in numerous hearing on environmental regulation many times. Regarding Climatic issues they are not discussed in nano seconds. One hundred yrs may seem like an eternity to you but not to me. It is is bleep on a screen. We learn by observing. I will not go into great detail of the abuse I have seen with those who over react in their demands of environmental regulation. There have been some strides made that have been productive but many more on the other side they have unnecessarily cost individuals and indusrtry consiberable sums of money to satisfy those who see the real world through rose colored glasses. My career started as an idealist and over time I became pragmatist as I saw the results manifested in people’s lives. The scope of this forum does not provide for the depth of discussion on this matter and my running narrative and reasoning would probably provide little interest to most. I do respect people’s concerns on these matters but I still contend this global warming issue is theory not fact and we do need to observe, we should not spread panic fear and over reaction. I do not “discount” everything as an act of nature as you propose I do, but I am not ready to acknowledge we must radically alter our lives of those who think the sky is falling tomorrow.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Forget about projections into the future. Do you at least agree that the average global temperature has risen over the past 100 years at a rate that has not occurred at any time in history? Or do you totally dismiss temperature reconstructions? If you have a scientific background, then you know that there are many proxies that do correlate with temperature, and that cross-checking independent proxies for consistency increases the reliability of their truly representing temperature.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
At one time, I thought these debates were actually about reality. One person would show his charts and graphs showing MMGW, and another would show his charts and graphs demonstrating the opposite.
But sometimes I really do become convinced that, for some, it’s just some kind of “social change” jusitification. When someone first ignores that 120 year chart showing absolutely no change other than periodic ups and downs in Missouri, then when confronted with it claims a warming period that followed a cool period somehow should be more convincing than the “no change” line over 120 years, I then doubt the seriousness of this whole thing.
If anybody wonders why the big time proponents of MMGW theory like Gore or Obama don’t live as if they believe it, things like this last few posts ought to lay it to rest. They don’t live it because they don’t believe it themselves.
J
JW55
Guest
You seem to want me to agree with you full heartedly. I can’t. Nor do you have any intention of doing so with me. I think I have clearly indicated in my past posts I agreed with you on certain aspects. Those were my feelings before we began our conversation, I have acknowledged there are changes over the short run. I have identified a concept of time to basically explain things in more or less a geologic sense rather than one of as stopwatch that many people want to do. .I am not sure how many times I need to say that.
I indicated we need to observe events around us in an educated manner. It is a concern. We need to be watchful and explore reasonable options and decide how we implement those in associated with other options. We also all need to do what we can an individual basis in a sound environmental manner. That just makes good sense, whether global warming is an issue or not. We do have to be watchful, but I think there have been too many people panicking and taking extreme views. I have seen many examples of extreme thinking in regard to environmentalism throughout my career. We don’t need more.
Your point about, “In history”: We have no way of really knowing that for sure with that degree of accuracy. Has the temperature risen in recent years. Yes. We can say that for sure. We have the means over that period of time to come that conclusion. Is this abnormal of what might have happened to the same period of time in the past, say 400 years ago, a thousand years ago.I don’t know nor do you. Predictors and cross-references can be helpful. Their degree of accuracy however is still limited. We do learn more all the time. We learn more about dinosaurs, the origin of man, how the earth formed. Our growth in knowledge is exponential rather than linear. That doesn’t mean we have all the answers. we can learn a lot from soils and geologic cross-sections but they are no 100% assurance we don’t have that defined science for things we have not directly observed. They are indicators but here is still a certain degree of subjectivity. We see thing in those areas we thought we were assured of 10-20 years ago, Additional studies have disproved in many cases to the best of our knowledge.
My personal ego is not appeased if I am right or wrong. I hope I am right, for all of our sakes… Regardless, what will happen will do so no matter of my view.To make an emphatic line in the sand and say global warming is occurring at this incredible rate and we have only a limited amount of time is simply perpetuating fear. My thought is we need to approach it in as I said before in a “pragmatic” manner and determine what we can do and how much should we actually do, and what can we do to encourage the rest of the world to take the steps they need to. Running the streets and yelling “Fire” doesn’t do anyone a bit of good.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle. You said to me . . .
It assumes the immorality of the Global Warming alarmist elites, has no bearing on the “research” results.
As a matter of fact LeafByNiggle, you said as much earlier in the same post saying . . . .
It DOES bear on this discussion in this case. Why?
Several reasons.
If the people leading this Globalist movement they truly CARE about the environment, as Pope Francis has at least hypothetically said, then they cannot be trusted to allow funding for honest research, data, and data analysis.
You would argue these guys are not doing the “research”.
But that is a partial truth as well (they ARE in many cases controlling who gets the funding and the conditions of such funding).
Also . . . “Research studies” are at times referred to in the Global Warming movement, with absolutely no access to primary data, materials and methods, data reproduction, etc.
This by definition is NOT science. But it is dishonestly passed off as science in some cases.
Real science DEMANDS “full disclosure”, not just of the scientific data but of the sources of funding for their “evangelists”.
We are not seeing this “full disclosure” in many cases.
In other cases, “scientific data” has been apparently fraudulently changed (do you think the morality of the “scientist” is relevant THERE? I do. And I hope you do too).
And when these (apparently) dishonest people are called out on it, and shown screenshots of their “data” being selectively changed, and challenged, the honest people who are asking questions have been personally vilified. I’ve seen this occur.
This is ANOTHER way a person’s moral character DOES fit into this paradigm. A paradigm you seem to DENY that can possibly exist.
Also the people are not being told what “solutions” are being put forth.
You are (wrongly I believe) completely divorcing the “problem” of greenhouse gas emissions, with “the (purposed) solutions”.
These “solutions” are already in some instances, being FORCED upon US taxpayers.
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/08/president-obama-just-gave-500-million-of-your-money-to-un-green-fund/
But the whole point as we were told last year at COP21 is that this is a PACKAGE (at least as far as THEY are concerned).
Research and the “solution” come together, at least THEY see it this way.
POPE FRANCIS Caring for ecosystems demands far-sightedness, since no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in their preservation. Pope Francis Laudato Si (36)
POPE FRANCIS Yet it must also be recognized that . . . . Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used. . . . . . In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.—Pope Francis Laudato Si (104)
POPE FRANCIS . . . . . leading to further interventions; human activity becomes ubiquitous, with all the risks which this entails. Often a vicious circle results, as human intervention to resolve a problem further aggravates the situation. . . . Pope Francis Laudato Si (34)
Continued . . .
This is a partial truth.
It assumes the immorality of the Global Warming alarmist elites, has no bearing on the “research” results.
As a matter of fact LeafByNiggle, you said as much earlier in the same post saying . . . .
This is as I said a partial truth.
It DOES bear on this discussion in this case. Why?
Several reasons.
If the people leading this Globalist movement they truly CARE about the environment, as Pope Francis has at least hypothetically said, then they cannot be trusted to allow funding for honest research, data, and data analysis.
You would argue these guys are not doing the “research”.
But that is a partial truth as well (they ARE in many cases controlling who gets the funding and the conditions of such funding).
Also . . . “Research studies” are at times referred to in the Global Warming movement, with absolutely no access to primary data, materials and methods, data reproduction, etc.
This by definition is NOT science. But it is dishonestly passed off as science in some cases.
Real science DEMANDS “full disclosure”, not just of the scientific data but of the sources of funding for their “evangelists”.
We are not seeing this “full disclosure” in many cases.
In other cases, “scientific data” has been apparently fraudulently changed (do you think the morality of the “scientist” is relevant THERE? I do. And I hope you do too).
And when these (apparently) dishonest people are called out on it, and shown screenshots of their “data” being selectively changed, and challenged, the honest people who are asking questions have been personally vilified. I’ve seen this occur.
This is ANOTHER way a person’s moral character DOES fit into this paradigm. A paradigm you seem to DENY that can possibly exist.
Also the people are not being told what “solutions” are being put forth.
You are (wrongly I believe) completely divorcing the “problem” of greenhouse gas emissions, with “the (purposed) solutions”.
These “solutions” are already in some instances, being FORCED upon US taxpayers.
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/08/president-obama-just-gave-500-million-of-your-money-to-un-green-fund/
But the whole point as we were told last year at COP21 is that this is a PACKAGE (at least as far as THEY are concerned).
Research and the “solution” come together, at least THEY see it this way.
POPE FRANCIS Caring for ecosystems demands far-sightedness, since no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in their preservation. Pope Francis Laudato Si (36)
POPE FRANCIS Yet it must also be recognized that . . . . Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used. . . . . . In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.—Pope Francis Laudato Si (104)
POPE FRANCIS . . . . . leading to further interventions; human activity becomes ubiquitous, with all the risks which this entails. Often a vicious circle results, as human intervention to resolve a problem further aggravates the situation. . . . Pope Francis Laudato Si (34)
Continued . . .
- Status