LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You say you are not criticizing the pope, and then in the same post you go ahead and criticize him again, since he is obviously not doing the things you think he should. Do you know what “criticize” means?
Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
None of this is any reason to trust dissenting scientists more than mainstream scientists. Mainstream scientists, for all their flaws, do have a better track record than dissenters.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, what other phenomenon do you propose that has not evidenced itself in 20,000 years, but all of a sudden it does? Remember, the rate of temperature increase in the industrial age is seven times higher than at any time since the last ice age. Even without any idea of a mechanism such as CO2, this one stat just screams for a connection.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your criterion for a suitable correlation is too strict. The only support you have given before is a paper that stated that a pause of 20 years was not seen in something like 95% of the simulations. This may cast doubt on the accuracy of those specific simulations, but the basis for climate change theory is much larger than just those simulations. So a technical deficiency in those simulations does not change the basis for the theory, which has many substantiations besides simulations.
No, we can ignore facts that are irrelevant to our argument and out of date.
There is no agreement because their is no scientific definition of what constitutes a hiatus. There is very little disagreement over what the actual temperature record has been. The disagreement, which is quite lopsided in favor of continued warming by the way, has been over which part of the temperature record to pay attention to in declaring a hiatus. I know you are trying to manufacture confusion among scientists, but on this issue there is none.
They can, when properly interpreted. Of course temperature reconstructions cannot reliably indicate an 18 year hiatus. But then we don’t expect that kind of temporal resolution from these methods. I suggest you read the three papers I cited earlier on temperature reconstructions to get some idea of how carefully they cross-check the reconstructions.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You have to be very careful about reading into Pope Francis saying . . . “the PROMOTION of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption” . . . . something that he doesn’t say!
The IPCC ASSUMES a Global Governance paradigm.
Many of the IPCC people have a clear profit motive, power motive, and often have worked to implement population control agendas—population control agendas that publicly are often draped in innocent sounding and sketchy nebulous language.
Consider one issue here—the profit motive.
Please heed the warnings of Pope Francis.
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)
Yet these motives have never been adequately addressed.
Are these Globalists looking for “quick and easy profit”? What does the evidence suggest?
Below from a prior post of mine . . . .
I discussed Al Gore’s three homes at least two of which are mansions (from the LA Times).
I mentioned if Al Gore thought his 9 million dollar California beach front home was going to be underwater by the end of 2015, WHY would he purchase this?
How many mansions does he have to have to get you on board with at least questioning his intent concerning the profit motive? Will FOUR mansions do it? How about Five?
I reminded . . . about the proverbial “New York Stock Exchange” for “selling” carbon called the “Chicago Climate Exchange”.
Barack Obama was a board member of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which helped set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Does this mean bad things? Not necessarily.
But a possible quid pro quo, would need to be transparently measured before even considering the IPCC POWER agenda.
General Investment Management (GIM) helped start up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Do you KNOW GIM was co-founded by Al Gore? Do you know former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood was the other Co-founder of GIM?
This is NOT evidence of malice or dishonesty by Mr. Gore etc., but it at least raises questions about the apparent conflict of interest in all of this!
Then I said (emphasis mine here): “no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in preservation of ecosystems.
Many of the Globalists define lifestyle “promotion” differently than Pope Francis.
Again. The IPCC ASSUMES Global Governance.
Yet Pope Francis WARNS of the risks with this sort of situation . . .
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)
Many of the Globalists want to implement MORE population control measures.
Government forcing other people to pay for their birth control isn’t enough for them.
Government forcing people to pay for their abortion isn’t enough for them.
Government forcing family limitations with FORCED ABORTION isn’t enough for them. The Globalists utter silence against the Chinese “one child policy” is alarming (China is now moving toward FORCED ENFORCEMENT of a TWO child policy due to their population vacuum).
I looked at the line up of a multitude of talks at COP21. Many population control advocates. NO meaningful pro-life discussion.
Population control is pushed by the Global Warming elites and population control is assumed in the UN documents.
**Goal 5.6 of the UN General Assembly - The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . . . **
QUOTE:
Insure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.
POPE FRANCIS “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate….Yet ‘while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.’ To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”— Laudato Si Section 50 )
The Global Governance crowd wants enormous POWER and CONTROL over your lives.
They want to carry out MUCH “intervention”.
But Pope Francis warns of the unintended consequences of this shenanigans . . . .
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)
The IPCC ASSUMES Global Governance.
Please don’t fall for this.
If you want to turn do things personally, fine. But the IPCC goals are a not appropriate.
The IPCC ASSUMES a Global Governance paradigm.
Many of the IPCC people have a clear profit motive, power motive, and often have worked to implement population control agendas—population control agendas that publicly are often draped in innocent sounding and sketchy nebulous language.
Consider one issue here—the profit motive.
Please heed the warnings of Pope Francis.
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)
Yet these motives have never been adequately addressed.
Are these Globalists looking for “quick and easy profit”? What does the evidence suggest?
Below from a prior post of mine . . . .
I discussed Al Gore’s three homes at least two of which are mansions (from the LA Times).
I mentioned if Al Gore thought his 9 million dollar California beach front home was going to be underwater by the end of 2015, WHY would he purchase this?
How many mansions does he have to have to get you on board with at least questioning his intent concerning the profit motive? Will FOUR mansions do it? How about Five?
I reminded . . . about the proverbial “New York Stock Exchange” for “selling” carbon called the “Chicago Climate Exchange”.
Barack Obama was a board member of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which helped set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Does this mean bad things? Not necessarily.
But a possible quid pro quo, would need to be transparently measured before even considering the IPCC POWER agenda.
General Investment Management (GIM) helped start up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Do you KNOW GIM was co-founded by Al Gore? Do you know former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood was the other Co-founder of GIM?
This is NOT evidence of malice or dishonesty by Mr. Gore etc., but it at least raises questions about the apparent conflict of interest in all of this!
Then I said (emphasis mine here): “no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in preservation of ecosystems.
Many of the Globalists define lifestyle “promotion” differently than Pope Francis.
Again. The IPCC ASSUMES Global Governance.
Yet Pope Francis WARNS of the risks with this sort of situation . . .
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)
Many of the Globalists want to implement MORE population control measures.
Government forcing other people to pay for their birth control isn’t enough for them.
Government forcing people to pay for their abortion isn’t enough for them.
Government forcing family limitations with FORCED ABORTION isn’t enough for them. The Globalists utter silence against the Chinese “one child policy” is alarming (China is now moving toward FORCED ENFORCEMENT of a TWO child policy due to their population vacuum).
I looked at the line up of a multitude of talks at COP21. Many population control advocates. NO meaningful pro-life discussion.
Population control is pushed by the Global Warming elites and population control is assumed in the UN documents.
**Goal 5.6 of the UN General Assembly - The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . . . **
QUOTE:
Insure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.
- Quote from UN. Their “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” document
POPE FRANCIS “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate….Yet ‘while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.’ To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”— Laudato Si Section 50 )
The Global Governance crowd wants enormous POWER and CONTROL over your lives.
They want to carry out MUCH “intervention”.
But Pope Francis warns of the unintended consequences of this shenanigans . . . .
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)
The IPCC ASSUMES Global Governance.
Please don’t fall for this.
If you want to turn do things personally, fine. But the IPCC goals are a not appropriate.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This whole population control and global governance stuff is a red herring. Population control is not an official position of the IPCC. It certainly is not the position of the vast majority of independent scientists (not in the IPCC) who agree that man made climate change is a serious issue. If you think otherwise, please cite an official IPCC paper, or a survey of scientists generally. In the meantime, it is no surprise that you can find population control advocates who have seen global warming as a convenient issue with which they can push their agenda. That says nothing at all about the issue of climate change itself, because the vast majority of climate change proponents are not population control people. Certainly Pope Francis is aware of the existence of population control efforts, and as you pointed out he is definitely against these efforts, as he should be. If population control and climate change were inextricably entwined, Pope Francis would certainly distance himself from climate change mitigation. Yet he did not do that. That is because he realizes, as we all should, that climate change is not dominated by any of these boogey men that one might parade for us.
U
ucfengr
Guest
I’m not criticizing the Pope, I’m trying to put his abstract wishes into concrete actions he can take to help create the sustainable models he desires.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So it’s OK with you if the Pope does not take your suggestion and implement those concrete actions, right? After all, you are not criticizing him.
U
ucfengr
Guest
I’m not understanding why I’m the bad guy here. I’ve accepted the premise the man-made global warming is an impending catastrophe that must be addressed. If the conventional wisdom is correct and we’re looking at an inhabitable planet for our grandchildren, then drastic steps must be taken if we want mitigate this problem. It just seems to me “common sense” that luxury goods like private jets and luxury European vacations to Rome need to be the first to go. How can you oppose taking such minor and reasonable steps to ensure the future habitability of the planet for the children?
G
graciew
Guest
Oh! The " Shepherd One" as referred to by Americans with a good sense of humour.
A " private jet" ? Not exactly.
Unless we want him to go surfing or paragliding around the world,he sometimes has to take commercial airlines .
Whatever chartered plane he takes turns into " Shepherd One".
You can find out more if you are interested. Googling,just like the rest of us…schlubs.
J
jtauke
Guest
So that means we as a species can’t act in a sustainable manner? Are we not called by God to be stewards of this planet?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This post, this post, and others you have made say otherwise. I can only assume that that you making this claim now as part of a tongue-in-cheek reductio ad absurdum argument. So no, I don’t believe you accept that premise for a moment.
It is not common sense. Common sense would be to address that which forms 99% of the problem before addressing what forms 1% of it. But you do have a point in that justice requires that those with the means to consume resources wastefully not do so, not so much for the direct effect they have on the problem itself, but for the effect of solidarity with those who do not have such great means. So yes, if I had a 40-foot yacht whose efficiency is rated in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon, I would feel guilty for running around Lake Erie for no reason at all, and I would feel obliged to curtail my trips, make them shorter, and make them count for more (i.e. bring friends as guests). Similarly, someone with a private jet should think long and hard about making a trip that might not be necessary, even if they can well afford it. However European vacations need not be wasteful of energy. One can travel coach so that more people benefit from burning that carbon, and once you get there you can travel by rail, which uses less energy per passenger mile than just about any other means of transportation, except maybe bicycles.
I do not consider the Pope’s travels to be wasteful. When he appears at a world youth day, a whole new generation of Catholics is energized. He is more effective in his mission than if he stayed inside the walls of the Vatican.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
He doesn’t have a private jet.
He flies on Alitalia airlines.
vatican.com/articles/popes/how_does_the_pope_travel-a49
U
ucfengr
Guest
So what you’re saying is cutting carbon footprints is for little people. Advocates for doing something about global warming can have the carbon footprint of a medium sized country with no criticism, but let me use incandescent light bulbs and I’m destroying the planet. And you wonder why people are skeptical of climate change. When the people crying the loudest for people to do something about climate change start living their lives like they believe it, I’ll start taking it more seriously. Until then, thppptt!
When he’s on the plane, nobody but he and his entourage are on the plane. It’s the functional equivalent of a private jet.
G
graciew
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I suppose that would be more convenient to you if was actually saying that. Then you would have a much easier time slaying that straw man. But no, I said what I said, not what you say I said.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
30 members of his entourage plus 70 members of the press. 100 people on a plane.
Did you know that private jets can be very small? A learjet 35 for example holds 6-8 passengers. Not all jets are 747’s.
X
Xystus
Guest
Wikipedia tells me a Learjet 35 has a range of 3290 miles and a fuel capacity of 1110 gallons. This gives us about 3 miles per gallon. (yes it is transporting 6-8 people but so does my minivan) There are famous people who scream about SUV fuel mileage in the high teens miles per gallon but will then fly on their private jet to the next movie premiere. That is what (i believe) ucfengr is talking about. Why should we take those people seriously when they don’t seem to “practice what they preach”.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You don’t have to take them seriously. There are plenty of other people who do not fly their private jets to movie premieres who are calling for less use of carbon fuel.
K
kingston1
Guest
I came into this whole global warming, chicken little, the sky is falling thing sorta snickering because the high priests of global warming are guys like Al Gore & Leo DiCaprio et al (aka hypocrites) but like some will say “it doesn’t matter if they’re hypocrites… it’s still happening.” Agreed, just thought I would save you the trouble of saying that. Does it bother me that I am scolded for the type of light bulb I use? Yes. Do I feel manipulated by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Gov Moonbeam Brown? Yes. But what if they’re right even though they create more carbon than the average joe?
The NASA site below has many convincing arguments also with the post from LeafbyNiggle with the comic book like chart and some studies he linked. Not sure how I can not believe climate change is real and being caused by elevated CO2 emissions. Seems to be a direct link. I am however only 24 - 48 into reading on this subject so I could be wrong as I am not intimately familiar with the subject.
I wish Al Gore, Gov Moonbeam and Leo D. weren’t the spokesmen for this as I believe they bring zero credibility to people like me. Would like to see someone more skeptical say they agree. It’s also hard to know what to believe because some say it’s a hoax, e.g. one of the co-founders of the weather channel and local San Diego newsman John Coleman. I used to watch him on the news and if you’re from SD you know his trademark signature “wheeeeeee…” He is quite the character.
By the way, China is the biggest CO2 producer in the world at 27%. After the first top 20 producing countries China producers more than ALL OTHER remaining nations combined. The US is number 2 at 20%. Seems like we both need to work on this but the question is of course, how?
I appreciate all the links from Leafbyniggle and others as I have learned something new!
NASA Link:
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Coleman Link on Snopes:
snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp
The NASA site below has many convincing arguments also with the post from LeafbyNiggle with the comic book like chart and some studies he linked. Not sure how I can not believe climate change is real and being caused by elevated CO2 emissions. Seems to be a direct link. I am however only 24 - 48 into reading on this subject so I could be wrong as I am not intimately familiar with the subject.
I wish Al Gore, Gov Moonbeam and Leo D. weren’t the spokesmen for this as I believe they bring zero credibility to people like me. Would like to see someone more skeptical say they agree. It’s also hard to know what to believe because some say it’s a hoax, e.g. one of the co-founders of the weather channel and local San Diego newsman John Coleman. I used to watch him on the news and if you’re from SD you know his trademark signature “wheeeeeee…” He is quite the character.
By the way, China is the biggest CO2 producer in the world at 27%. After the first top 20 producing countries China producers more than ALL OTHER remaining nations combined. The US is number 2 at 20%. Seems like we both need to work on this but the question is of course, how?
I appreciate all the links from Leafbyniggle and others as I have learned something new!
NASA Link:
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Coleman Link on Snopes:
snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp
- Status