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

[Ender]

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.

What is disputed is the effect (if any) such an increase has had on global temperature. If there was a direct relationship between temperature and CO2 we would expect that over the last 20 years, as CO2 emissions have increased 10-12%, to see a concomitant rise in temperature…which has stubbornly failed to manifest itself. Yes, man is contributing to the rise in CO2, but the question remains unanswered: is he contributing anything (meaningful) to the rise in temperature?

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

I have talked to a lot of people who do believe that to get rid of the root cause of global warming is to reduce the human population. This belief is more widespread than you think.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

I don’t have the supplier name right now but they do get government subsidy.

A lot of environmentalists are against wind farms right now due to the threat to birds.

 

[Adonia]

Citing things that man did not cause is not argument against things man is causing now.

Sure it is, because the “climate change” fanatics are using the argument that man is the cause when the warming and cooling of the earth has happened since God made the place. This is nothing more than attempt by the leftists to: A. Get more government control of everyone and everything. B. Attack and bleed dry the capitalistic system that has brought more people out of poverty than any other form of governing. This whole thing has become a money maker, especially for those in academia who want more and more public dollars to feather their own useless existences in cushy positions at major universities around the world.

 

[tomarin]

Sure it is, because the “climate change” fanatics are using the argument that man is the cause when the warming and cooling of the earth has happened since God made the place. This is nothing more than attempt by the leftists to: A. Get more government control of everyone and everything. B. Attack and bleed dry the capitalistic system that has brought more people out of poverty than any other form of governing. This whole thing has become a money maker, especially for those in academia who want more and more public dollars to feather their own useless existences in cushy positions at major universities around the world.

I feel a bit of disconnect reading your post, since most of the scientists I know are not greedy or dishonest people.

 

[Cathoholic]

It is quite different purposing . . .

“the PROMOTION of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption,”

Then it is . . . .

“the GLOBAL GOVERNMENT IMPOSITION of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption,”

To present Pope Francis’ statement as some sort of quasi-religious dogma is inappropriate and overly melodramatic.

The global warming movement at the highest realms is really about Global population control and Globalist POWER.

You can see it in their own words.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have talked to a lot of people who do believe that to get rid of the root cause of global warming is to reduce the human population. This belief is more widespread than you think.

And it might be a lot less widespread than you think.

 

[Thursday1]

Sure it is, because the “climate change” fanatics are using the argument that man is the cause when the warming and cooling of the earth has happened since God made the place. This is nothing more than attempt by the leftists to: A. Get more government control of everyone and everything. B. Attack and bleed dry the capitalistic system that has brought more people out of poverty than any other form of governing. This whole thing has become a money maker, especially for those in academia who want more and more public dollars to feather their own useless existences in cushy positions at major universities around the world.

Did you look at the graphic that Leaf and I both linked to?

Here it is again: xkcd.com/1732/.

If the fastest earth has warmed in the last 20,000 years was 1 degree over 1,000 years, and it has warmed 1 degree over the last century there is something unnatural causing it.

 

[ucfengr]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29936

November 15, 2016

The international community has a “serious ethical and moral responsibility to act without delay” in combating climate change, Pope Francis said in a message to COP22, the UN climate conference taking place in Marrakech, Morocco…

Citing the need for “the promotion of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption,” the Pope called for a “culture of protection” of one’s neighbor as well as of creation.

Perhaps the Pope could take the lead on creating a sustainable model by leveling the Vatican to build sustainable and affordable housing for refugees. I mean, I like the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Basilica as much as anybody, but their existence does create the unsustainable model of millions of tourists burning millions and millions of tons of CO2 travelling to visit each year.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is disputed is the effect (if any) such an increase has had on global temperature. If there was a direct relationship between temperature and CO2 we would expect that over the last 20 years, as CO2 emissions have increased 10-12%, to see a concomitant rise in temperature…which has stubbornly failed to manifest itself. Yes, man is contributing to the rise in CO2, but the question remains unanswered: is he contributing anything (meaningful) to the rise in temperature?

Thank you for confirming that we do know the extent to which man causes a rise in CO2. As for the much-vaunted hiatus, it is over. You can stop talking about it now. In fact, here is a website that attempts to argue for the continued existence of the hiatus. I cite it not because I agree with it, but because you will perhaps put more trust in the data they use. Note especially the number 0.000082 in the lower right. It is a positive number, indicating a positive temperature trend. So even with their extreme cherry picking of the time period over which they ran a linear regression, they still couldn’t get a zero slope. However, if I am allowed to do some cherry picking of my own, I would draw your attention to last 5 years. The graph clearly shows a nearly steady increase of temperature over that time period, and at a rate that is much higher than the rate from 1979. That indicates** acceleration**. So what’s so special about a linear regression run over the last 18 years, as compared to a linear regression run over the last 5 years? I would argue that the last 5 years is more relevant, because it is more recent. And if we can move on to other benchmarks, I can cite that Minnesota has just broken a record for the longest growing season ever. It is November 16th, and Minneapolis still hasn’t seen its first frost. About 50% of the time the first frost is October 5th.

At some point you are going to run out of cherries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps the Pope could take the lead on creating a sustainable model by leveling the Vatican to build sustainable and affordable housing for refugees. I mean, I like the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Basilica as much as anybody, but their existence does create the unsustainable model of millions of tourists burning millions and millions of tons of CO2 travelling to visit each year.

This constant citation of the Pope not practicing what he preaches is really quite silly, and I think you know it. If you disagree with the Pope over the specifics of what he says, then do so on a factual basis. But don’t dismiss what he says by denigrating his sincerity. :tsktsk:

 

[Ender]

As for the much-vaunted hiatus, it is over.

Given that you admit a hiatus occurred even as CO2 omissions were steadily increasing still points to the relevance of my comment. If CO2 causes warming, why didn’t warming increase for those 18ish years when CO2 was increasing? Where is the correlation?

You can stop talking about it now.

Shall we ignore all the facts inconvenient to our argument?

In fact, here is a website that attempts to argue for the continued existence of the hiatus. I cite it not because I agree with it, but because you will perhaps put more trust in the data they use. Note especially the number 0.000082 in the lower right. It is a positive number, indicating a positive temperature trend.

Here’s the thing: why should we believe climate scientists understand what will happen in the future when they can’t agree on what has happened in the past? There isn’t even agreement among them whether there ever was a hiatus in the first place. Given that the data collection over the last 20 years has been the most extensive, state of the art available, why is the raw data being continually adjusted and why don’t the scientists agree on what has been happening? *in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected. Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real. *(Nature News)
Even with the best technology available there is dispute within the scientific community about what has happened over the last 20 years. But apparently reconstructions of temperature trends thousands of years ago based on mud cores, tree rings, and for all we know chicken entrails can be taken seriously. You asserted earlier (post #61) that “the scientists” know what percent of the warming is man made. The truth is they don’t even know how much warming has occurred, let alone man’s contribution to it.

 

[Sarcelle]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29936

November 15, 2016

The international community has a “serious ethical and moral responsibility to act without delay” in combating climate change, Pope Francis said in a message to COP22, the UN climate conference taking place in Marrakech, Morocco…

Citing the need for “the promotion of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption,” the Pope called for a “culture of protection” of one’s neighbor as well as of creation.

Thing is what constitutes this favorable lifestyle?

What are Catholics supposed to do?

Not much details.

 

[phil19034]

You may not know that, but scientists do.
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.

You misunderstood me. When I said the CO2 levels assumes no natural causes, I wasn’t referring to natural CO2 immersions.

I was referring to other natural climate changing phenomenon.

 

[phil19034]

I feel a bit of disconnect reading your post, since most of the scientists I know are not greedy or dishonest people.

It’s not that scientists are greedy or dishonest people… however, the academies have their own code when it comes to getting published, reaching tenure, being promoted from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and then to Professor, etc.

When the scientific community accepts a theory as “mainstream,” scientists who challenge that are often discredited. Becoming discredited hurts a scientist from receiving funding.

For example, scientists who believe in the possibility of alien life were often ridiculed.

First scientists to propose that Black Holes were real were ridiculed, the first scientist (a Catholic Priest) to propose the Big Bang was ridiculed, etc.

It used to be taboo for scientists to even talk about alien life and/or time travel. Now, it’s practically in vogue.

Point is, I’ve heard a number of scientists state that to be publicly against man made climate change is career suicide.

NOTE: for me, I’m not saying that man made climate change isn’t real. I’m saying it isn’t proven. It is a hypothesis or theory. It’s not science fact. Again, I believe that climate change (not talking about CO2 levels) is most likely a combination of natural cycles of the Earth and man.

And I’m 100% for clean energy, clean industry, etc. However, I’m NOT for population control, which a large number of the leftist elite are in favor for. This is why they support abortion & euthanasia. This is also why they support taxpayer supported abortions around the world; and why they really never objected to the China “one child policy” (which is now 2 children). And why they support taxpayer Birth Control and why birth control is often part of medical and relief packages they send to poor people.

I’m sorry, but I simply do not trust the liberal elite (which include academia)

 

[tomarin]

It’s not that scientists are greedy or dishonest people… however, the academies have their own code when it comes to getting published, reaching tenure, being promoted from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and then to Professor, etc.

When the scientific community accepts a theory as “mainstream,” scientists who challenge that are often discredited. Becoming discredited hurts a scientist from receiving funding.

For example, scientists who believe in the possibility of alien life were often ridiculed.

First scientists to propose that Black Holes were real were ridiculed, the first scientist (a Catholic Priest) to propose the Big Bang was ridiculed, etc.

It used to be taboo for scientists to even talk about alien life and/or time travel. Now, it’s practically in vogue.

Point it, I’ve heard a number of scientists state that to be publicly against man made climate change is career suicide.

NOTE: for me, I’m not saying that man made climate change isn’t real. I’m saying it isn’t proven. It is a hypothesis or theory. It’s not science fact. Again, I believe that climate change (not talking about CO2 levels) is most likely a combination of natural cycles of the Earth and man.

And I’m 100% clean energy, clean industry, etc. However, I’m NOT for population control, which a large number of the leftist elite are in favor for. This is why they support abortion & euthanasia. This is also why they support taxpayer supported abortions around the world; and why they really never objected to the China “one child policy” (which is now 2 children).

That describes my point of view fairly well, as well.

 

[ucfengr]

This constant citation of the Pope not practicing what he preaches is really quite silly, and I think you know it. If you disagree with the Pope over the specifics of what he says, then do so on a factual basis. But don’t dismiss what he says by denigrating his sincerity. :tsktsk:

I’m not criticizing the Pope, I’m offering solutions to a problem. We’re talking about having a habitable planet for my children and grandchildren. If that’s the case, then we need to start getting rid of luxuries. Let’s be honest, the Vatican is a luxury. There’s nothing the Pope can do at the Vatican that he couldn’t do in some nice sustainable office space in Poughkeepsie leaving the space where the Vatican sits to be used for sustainable housing for climate refugees. Obviously, the Vatican isn’t the only place that would need to go. To save the planet we’re going to need to get rid of this unsustainable model of hundred of millions of people taking trillions of miles worth of trips on frivolous things like vacations every year. I only mention the Vatican because it is something under the Pope’s immediate control, so this is something he could do without UN authorization. Taking the Papal Bull by the horns, if you will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not criticizing the Pope, I’m offering solutions to a problem. We’re talking about having a habitable planet for my children and grandchildren. If that’s the case, then we need to start getting rid of luxuries. Let’s be honest, the Vatican is a luxury. There’s nothing the Pope can do at the Vatican that he couldn’t do in some nice sustainable office space in Poughkeepsie leaving the space where the Vatican sits to be used for sustainable housing for climate refugees. Obviously, the Vatican isn’t the only place that would need to go. To save the planet we’re going to need to get rid of this unsustainable model of hundred of millions of people taking trillions of miles worth of trips on frivolous things like vacations every year. I only mention the Vatican because it is something under the Pope’s immediate control, so this is something he could do without UN authorization. Taking the Papal Bull by the horns, if you will.

I realize you’re speaking tongue in cheek. But still, before knocking down the jewel of western culture, we could perhaps flatten Disneyland, Las Vegas or even Branson before seriously considering it.

 

[ucfengr]

I realize you’re speaking tongue in cheek. But still, before knocking down the jewel of western culture, we could perhaps flatten Disneyland, Las Vegas or even Branson before seriously considering it.

The Pope doesn’t control any of those areas, and you gotta start somewhere

 

[Theo520]

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.

Pollution control is an excellent topic for the UN to support, but CO2 is not pollution. We too had toxic air in the 70’s in the USA, but we were able to clean it up and still use fossil fuels.