Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
I am sorry I used the word “hypocrite”. It was an unnecessary exaggeration of what you wrote. I was probably thinking also about what others have written, and although no one came out and called the pope a hypocrite, they were critical of his lack of living by example.
Click to expand...
Forgiven.
 
tomarin said:
Just for the sake of being the devil’s advocate here* (and keeping in mind that there are alternative explanations for this phenomenon than the ones put forward by the climate change people), what about the worldwide retreat of glaciers? That is observable and it is happening, correct?

*and I do acknowledge it is curious the effects of climate change are not being felt by farmers and people with an intimate knowledge of the land, such as yourself.
Click to expand...
Some say this and some say that, and everybody has his “indisputable study” to back him up; no, he has multiple studies. One person points to ice calving on the shores of Greenland, another points out that the inland ice is deeper. One points to the arctic, another to the Antarctic, and son on. Some say the lack of warming is due to the heat going into the deep ocean. On and on.

And meanwhile, I sit on a climatic transition zone and it hasn’t moved an inch since I was a little kid. So am I compelled to believe in MMGW? Well, in fact I do. I believe some parts of the world are so ruined by human activity that they’re “heat sinks” just like cities are.
But I do not believe that’s irreversible, it’s only difficult to reverse.

What I do not believe is that the only remedy is to make utilities and transportation needlessly expensive
 
Well, just because one is skeptical of man made global warming, does not mean one is indifferent about the environment.

Man global warming or not we are still called to stewards of the environment.
 
po18guy said:
I strongly disagree with all opinions expressed in this thread!

Truthfully, the air in New Delhi, for example, is now toxic. That would certainly be something good to address. While there is massive taxation, people control and population control in the utterly hysterical “We’re all going to die!” movement, there is an efficacious attitude of caring for that which God gives us that is good and worthwhile to engender.
Click to expand...
We saw that in California and we set emissions standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has set emissions standards and the air is much cleaner today than in the 70’s. The air can be cleaned through emission standards. CARB is hated by some but there is no doubt the air is cleaner.

It seems that at least in the case of California and the actions taken for air quality there is a way to combat it.

However, I am wondering how the air quality in New Dehli affects global warming or the comments of the Pope to the UN. Also, wonder why New Dehli hasn’t tackled their man made issue? They really should do something about their air, couldn’t agree more.
 
kingston1 said:
I looked at the chart and from what you said the variation of temperature wasn’t as volatile as it is now but it was more of a steady warming or cooling as opposed to now where the warming is more extreme and quicker than before.

Can we know with certainty the temperature in 20000 BC? I’m not disputing but now just curious how they can know the year to year temperature from that time.
Click to expand...
Well, they certainly don’t know it from direct thermometer measurements, but the general sweep of these temperatures can be inferred from various sources and cross-checked for consistency. In his graphic, Randall cites Shakun (2012), Marcott (2013), and Annan & Hargreaves (2013). These papers would be a good starting point in learning about reconstruction of past climates.
 
Ridgerunner said:
What I do not believe is that the only remedy is to make utilities and transportation needlessly expensive
Click to expand...
Since we are questioning every hypothesis, I think this hypothesis also needs to be questioned. How do we know that global warming mitigation will definitely result in utilities and transportation becoming needlessly expensive? And please don’t trot out Obama’s comment about “skyrocketing”. That is not a convincing argument.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Since we are questioning every hypothesis, I think this hypothesis also needs to be questioned. How do we know that global warming mitigation will definitely result in utilities and transportation becoming needlessly expensive? And please don’t trot out Obama’s comment about “skyrocketing”. That is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...
Why would you not take Obama at his word? Regardless, he has probably done as much damage as he’ll manage, and some of his regulatory measures might well get reversed. Might be a moot point now.

Still, a lot of power plants switched over to gas at a significant cost. We got our notice of increased rates due to the changeover maybe two months ago.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I am surprised. You don’t usually applaud the belittling of others’ views. I suggest you get back to your usual higher standards that has so inspired me.
Click to expand...
Some views are so extreme they deserve to be skewered, as was done here in a manner that was both clever and humorous, two characteristics I appreciate.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Why would you not take Obama at his word? Regardless, he has probably done as much damage as he’ll manage, and some of his regulatory measures might well get reversed. Might be a moot point now.

Still, a lot of power plants switched over to gas at a significant cost. We got our notice of increased rates due to the changeover maybe two months ago.
Click to expand...
Your unspecified rate increase is not proof of “needlessly expensive”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Some say this and some say that, and everybody has his “indisputable study” to back him up; no, he has multiple studies. One person points to ice calving on the shores of Greenland, another points out that the inland ice is deeper. One points to the arctic, another to the Antarctic, and son on. Some say the lack of warming is due to the heat going into the deep ocean. On and on.
Click to expand...
A few years ago I visited a glacier near Banff in Alberta, Canada and they had placed markers to indicate where the glacier had extended to in the recent past; in the 1940’s it was 100 or 200 yards farther out than the edge of the glacier is today. I’ve read that that’s the case with other glaciers worldwide, that they are in retreat (although I wonder if that’s the case for every glacier or just most). I wondered at the time when exactly global warming is supposed to have started, because normally it isn’t presented as starting in the 1940’s yet that is when this particular glacier began to shrink.

My point, such as it is, being that maybe we are in a natural warming trend that predates man-made warming. Although I suspect it’s very hard to separate what is ‘natural’ and what is caused by man at this point.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Why would you not take Obama at his word? Regardless, he has probably done as much damage as he’ll manage, and some of his regulatory measures might well get reversed. Might be a moot point now.

Still, a lot of power plants switched over to gas at a significant cost. We got our notice of increased rates due to the changeover maybe two months ago.
Click to expand...
I switched over to an electric supplier that uses wind turbines.

Saw no change in my electric bill.
 
In any event the Pope as a man is entitled to his own opinion on this or any other topic based on what he believes to be true. This is not an ex-cathedra infallible proclamation saying whether man made global warning is true or not, it’s his personal opinion. It is open to argument and we are free to disagree and debate it.

But he is the Pope and sometimes I wish he’d be a little more circumspect when it comes to non-spiritual and divisive issues like this as people don’t always draw the distinction of the Pope as a man and his role as Christ’s vicar on earth.
 
lynnvinc said:
So you are implying the Pope, who has graduate education in science, and 1000s of climate scientists don’t know anything about anything and only you know the real truth?

God is Truth. Lying is a sin. Climate change denialism is not only a sin of lying, but also of putting millions of lives in jeopardy…billions if we fail to act now and we tip the earth system into an extremely life-inhospitable regime for 100s, 1000s, perhaps even 200,000 years as happened during the end-Permian great warming that killed off 95% of life on earth some 251 million years ago. Only that time was due to natural causes, so it took a lot longer for the system to tip into an extinction-level state for 200,000 years; we humans are doing it much faster, orders of magnitude faster, as if with a vengeance for life.

Prudence requires that we do our utmost to mitigate climate change, whether or not we accept or reject what Pope Francis has to say, or what 1000s of scientists have to say.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with the secular climate change people.

They all choose the planet over people.

They believe the answer is: birth control, abortion, euthanasia, tough regulations REGARDLESS of the negative financial impacts it has on families, tough regulations REGARDLESS of whether the regulations will actually work.

These people also take an extremist view. They believe that climate change is 100% man made. (NOTE: there are extremists on the other side too, who believe that climate change is 100% natural).

Personally, I believe climate change is most likely a combination of BOTH manmade and natural. But I have no idea regarding the break down. Is it 50/50, 90/10, 75/25, etc? Don’t know and science doesn’t know either.

Pope Francis mainly wants individuals and companies to do everything they can to protect the environment. This is honorable and holy.

However, a lot of secularist society wants to use MAINLY population control & institute communist/socialist policies.

The fact is, if climate change is manmade, it is a result of sin… replacing sin with sin isn’t going to make things better. The answer is less sin, not more.
 
tomarin said:
Although I suspect it’s very hard to separate what is ‘natural’ and what is caused by man at this point.
Click to expand...
This! 👍

Science has NO idea how much is man made vs natural.

It could be 90% natual or 90% man made … but we don’t know.

By all means, we should seek out clean energy and clean factories… But we should NOT be engaging in population control and hurting families.
 
phil19034 said:
This! 👍

Science has NO idea how much is man made vs natural.
Click to expand...
There are many ways. Isotope analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere is one way of unambiguously attributing how much of the CO2 increase comes from human activity. That much is certain.
By all means, we should seek out clean energy and clean factories… But we should NOT be engaging in population control and hurting families.
Click to expand...
You are so skeptical about climate change. I am just as skeptical that climate change mitigation is about population control, or that it will hurt families.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There are many ways. Isotope analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere is one way of unambiguously attributing how much of the CO2 increase comes from human activity. That much is certain.

You are so skeptical about climate change. I am just as skeptical that climate change mitigation is about population control, or that it will hurt families.
Click to expand...
I’m not “skeptical” about climate change. I just don’t know the % of what is man made vs natural. Manmade CO2 level readings ASSUMES that there is nothing natural going on too.

It’s simple… I don’t trust communists and they have influtrated the liberal parties of the Western nations & the UN.

I highly suggest you watch “A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing” on EWTN (you can also stream it for $4 at alinskyfilm.com)
 
Sarcelle said:
I switched over to an electric supplier that uses wind turbines.

Saw no change in my electric bill.
Click to expand...
One thing is for certain; it’s not all provided by wind turbines. Possibly if you identified the supplier we could also check to see how much it has received in government subsidies.

That’s why Germany is now using more brown coal, the dirtiest coal there is. The subsidies required for “green energy” (mostly wind in their case) were just too expensive for the government to bear any longer.
 
phil19034 said:
I’m not “skeptical” about climate change. I just don’t know the % of what is man made vs natural.
Click to expand...
You may not know that, but scientists do.
Manmade CO2 level readings ASSUMES that there is nothing natural going on too.
Click to expand...
No, it can accurately factor out things like CO2 from forest fires. They have a different isotope fingerprint than CO2 from burning coal and oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top