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

[Cathoholic]

And to FOLLOW their leadership and their immoral “solutions” CREATES PROBLEMS, that are WORSE.

And I pointed out Pope Francis warning us of THAT hypothetical too.

Power, Control, and Population Control is at the root of the IPCC “solutions”.

If this degree of power is demanded, then it is appropriate to inquire about what strings are being attached, even implicitly if not explicitly, to research-dollar allocation.

We’ve seen games with “definitive research” before. We must learn from our mistake of overzealous acceptance of faulty research that masquerades as “science”.

We’ve seen these shenanigans for example in the food industry.

What older person can forget the margarine companies public relations campaign disguised as “research” to harpoon citizens (or “consumers” as they are often called) butter usage.

Years later this phony “research” was exposed but the margarine companies already illicitly gathered a loyal customer base, these and other customers ingested the trans fats associated with margarine for . . . YEARS by the time this was unmasked, and many dairy farmers were victimized by (some) of these dishonest people in the food industry (waging a public relations campaign under the guise of “research”).

The other problem with all of this in general is dishonest research makes people cynical about good and forthright research!

This “research cynicism” may hurt society in this way too.

And the IPCC is prepared for that too aren’t they LeafByNiggle.

The IPCC agenda includes having the POWER to even decide what “acceptable” science is and what “acceptable” science is NOT.

So much for “the science”.

The Global Warming agenda is a package LeafByNiggle. And it has had many dishonest aspects exposed.

But the leaders don’t admit to these things very readily. And people who bring it to the attention of others have often been vilified. Sometimes they have lost their grants or even been suspended from or lost their jobs.

This is not the way honest research is carried out LeafByNiggle.

And I see a link between the morality of the leaders and the research such as phony set-up grant foundations, “documentary” hysterics, public attacks on the reputation of those who disagree, a refusal to give “deniers” a proper forum for a real discussion, phony “research results”, refusal to see and scrutinize data, the refusal to allow questions when “reproducibility” of studies cannot be verified, trotting out what I call, “media myrmidons” (unquestioning followers who are in media positions) to manipulate their viewers feelings under a guise of “news”.

Also emails found and exposed about taking the citizens for a ride, Global Warming LEADERS that don’t believe the “gospel” they themselves are preaching in their religion of secular humanism disguised as environmentalism, a willingness to kill people for “the cause” in abortion and other population control measures, an untrustworthy LUST for power, NASA people retiring to work for Global Warming evangelists and getting a wealthy “pay day”, etc. etc.

When you see global warming proponents toss around a phony 97% concurrence among scientists, but when other people go BACK and interview these same scientists used in that metadata . . . and almost 25% of THEM say conclusions were being forced and were NOT made by them, yet . . .
. . . yet . . . the Global Warming advocates KEEP QUOTING THE 97% fallacious figures ANYWAY, you can conclude at least SOME things are amiss.

The “research” and explicitly “the GLOBAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLS” and more implicitly the “Population Control schemes” go hand in hand with the IPCC.

And I think you know it and I think all the readers here know it.

So you attempting to disassociate the research from the solutions wanting to be foisted upon the people (population control and Global Governance) is naive or disingenuous.

For readers of this forum . . .

***The IPCC wants . . . . ***

The POWER to define what “acceptable” science is.
The POWER for an international tax.
The POWER for an international police FORCE.
The POWER to issue unspecified “Certifications”.
The POWER to perpetuate their own power.
The POWER to form a new proverbial “New York Stock Exchange” in the form of “carbon credits” world taxpayers will be forced to PURCHASE under certain conditions.
The POWER to control energy.
The POWER to control manufacturing industries and construction.
The POWER to control oil and natural gas.
The POWER to control metal production.
The POWER to control agriculture.
These people even the power to control how much gas your cow heard will be allowed to pass (I’m serious) or “enteric fermentation”.

Read that then go to the Public Library and look at the inside cover of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.

You will see a list of “ten things to do”.

***Al Gore leads you to think the Global Warming movement is about . . . . ***

Change a light
Drive less
Recycle more
Check your tires
Use less hot water
Avoid products with a lot of packaging
Adjust your thermostat
Plant a tree
Turn off electronic devices
Be a part of the solution

WHO could be against THIS?

Yet “THIS” is NOT really the “agenda” of the IPCC is it?

 

[kingston1]

wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/uk-researchers-tax-food-to-reduce-climate-change/

This article is about the proposal to raise taxes on carbon producing foods such as dairy and meat to fight global warming.

This is exactly the fear expressed in this thread which is government over reach to fight global warming. I may be in favor if the taxes gained off set other taxes such as property or sales taxes but we all know that won’t happen. If by raising taxes on certain things we get closer to paying no taxes I am all for it, so those who don’t do the bad behavior win. Isn’t the end purpose to have punitive measures on carbon creating industries not the collection of taxes?

China 27% of all carbon emissions. US 20%. Seems a good place to start, instead of raising taxes how about these ideas?

Mitigation:

Government Side: Reduce emissions by adopting the California Air Resource Boards (CARB) emissions standards. Adopt safe nuclear power. Don’t punish solar users (see Hawaii for example who stopped new solar panels from being installed). Improve mass transit. Bike lanes on all roads as a matter of policy.

Industry: Offer more affordable non-combustible cars and trucks. Higher MPG. Hydrogen powered vehicles. Improve solar and other energies.

Personal: Become mainly a vegetarian, consume locally grown foods. Raise chickens and dairy goats. Recycle and reuse. Grow more trees and plants.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Of course truth cannot contradict truth, so one of them must have been wrong.

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…

You are incorrect about that. The graph in question did indeed show a warming trend. If you did not see that, then maybe you do not know how to read that graph, especially the trace that was labeled “5-year running average”.

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.

I don’t know if those particular people believe it or not, but the real question is not “who believes it”. The question is “is it true”. And that is a scientific question, not a political or social question.

 

[edwest2]

I am for a balanced approach to this issue. All I ask for is honesty. And sources anyone can check on. For some reason, reading complex reports with words I don’t understand yet, is something I do and encourage. I think it is reasonable to conclude that prominent persons who advocate for this or that solution, but do not follow their own recommendations, are being dishonest. A good College library should have the journals in print and on hand, along with others. The following is not meant to stir needless further debate, but may be helpful for those in positions where such information could be useful.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Ed

Power is about control and manipulation in the vast majority of cases. However, whenever a great deal of money is at stake, switching from this to that power source could cost some people a lot of money that they will either pass on to the consumer or wisely transition to something new with little disruption for all concerned, and new profits using new or newer technologies. But once a certain dollar value is reached, something happens. I call it: “There’s no such thing as too much money.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You seem to want me to agree with you full heartedly. I can’t.

Usually when two scientists disagree about something, they will present evidence and use the scientific method, rather than simply declare “I can’t”. But if you want to ignore the data, that is your choice, I guess.

I indicated we need to observe events around us in an educated manner.

I thought I was doing just that.

It is a concern. We need to be watchful and explore reasonable options and decide how we implement those in associated with other options.

Implement? I wasn’t saying anything about implementations. I have not taken a position on environmental regulation. There is no sense discussing implementations of anything if we don’t even agree on the current facts.

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.

Of course they are limited. The question is, how limited are they? We can use data with limited accuracy as long as it is not too limited. In science we don’t just wave our hands over these terms. We quantify them. In the case of temperature reconstructions, they are not perfectly accurate, but they are accurate enough to say that a temperature rise of one degree C in 100 years has never happened before since the earth was inhabitable. Therefore such a rate is highly unlikely to have a natural cause.

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.

Just to be clear, I am not an alarmist. I am not advocating carbon restrictions. I am not advocating banning SUVs. In fact I am not advocating anything, nor do I claim that a crisis is imminent. Others may have said things like that, but not everyone who agrees that global warming is a fact also agrees that we are doomed unless we do such and such. Like you, I believe in a pragmatic and fact-based approach.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle. You said to me . . .

This is a partial truth.

It assumes the immorality of the Global Warming alarmist elites, has no bearing on the “research” results.

No, I do not assume that. Even if we allow that some Global Warming alarmist are also population control pushers, and even if we allow that those people, if they are researchers, might allow their agenda to corrupt their research results - even if we allow all that to be true, those people represent a small fraction of the population. There are plenty other scientists who are not population control pushers, and whose research, therefore need not be corrupted by that agenda. And those scientists also agree that global warming is happening. That is why the actions or motivations of that tiny minority of corrupt scientists is irrelevant when considered the truths of global warming.

 

[Cathoholic]

Read the Kyoto Protocol for yourself (here is one link).

(English html here.)

It’s not a large document.

It is quite easy to read.

If you read the Kyoto Protocol for yourself you will find this nebulous or broadly-defined IPCC goals call for . . . .

---

The re-distribution of wealth on a global scale.(parenthesis mine) . . . .

“The developed country parties” shall "provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing countr(ies)"

“The developed country parties” (My estimation is, that’s code for the USA - yes other countries too, but primarily the USA - see here for financing the “Panel” currently WITHOUT this full Treaty “force” for the USA. How much WORSE when it becomes “force” by “law”?) shall "provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing countr(ies)"

---

The IPCC calls for authority to define what is “accepted” science and what isn’t (couched in “reasonable sounding” language) . . .

“Methodologies for estimating anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol shall be those accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

---

The IPCC calls for **more authority for . . . . itself. **

The IPCC will oversee itself (just like the Federal Reserve does now in “banking” in the USA).

“The clean development mechanism shall be subject to the authority and guidance of the Conference”

---

The IPCC wants to also set up a racket for “certifications” (and re-certifications and more re-certifications. Do “annual” re-certifications and you can take them for more money.).

“Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference” . . .

---

The IPCC wants to perpetuate their power structure . . .

". . . . shall be replaced by an additional member to be elected by and from amongst the Parties to this Protocol."

---

The IPCC (Kyoto Group) wants power for international taxation (from Art. 13, Sec.4):

(g) Seek to mobilize additional financial resources in accordance with
Article 11, paragraph 2;
(h) Establish such subsidiary bodies as are deemed necessary for the implementation of this Protocol;

---

The IPCC (Kyoto Group) wants power to set up a new International proverbial New York Stock Exchange for carbon credits (from Art. 17).

The Conference of the Parties shall define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines, in particular for verification, reporting and accountability for emissions trading.

---

The IPCC (Kyoto Group) wants virtual international POLICE POWER (from Art. 18) which has the potential to “weaponize” their Global Governance paradigm . . .

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session, approve appropriate and effective procedures and mechanisms to determine and to address cases of non-compliance with the provisions of this Protocol . . .

---

Here is some of THEIR LIST of all-encompassing things they think should have their own central bureaucratic Global control over (at least to some extent):

Greenhouse gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Sectors/source categories
Energy
Fuel combustion
Energy industries
Manufacturing industries and construction
Transport
Other sectors
Other
Fugitive emissions from fuels
Solid fuels
Oil and natural gas
Other
Industrial processes
Mineral products
Chemical industry
Metal production
Other production
Production of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride
Consumption of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride
Other
Solvent and other product use
Agriculture
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Rice cultivation
Agricultural soils
Prescribed burning of savannas
Field burning of agricultural residues
Other
Waste
Solid waste disposal on land
Wastewater handling
Waste incineration
Other

---

We see all this centralized bloated Globalist bureaucratic POWER structure wanting to be arranged by these people who are also Population Controllers . . .

Yet we hear the Church talk of the “Principle of Subsidiarity”.

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

From Wikipedia here and Google here.

Please share this information with others.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

That is why the actions or motivations of that tiny minority of corrupt scientists is irrelevant when considered the truths of global warming.

But we are not talking merely about the actions or motivations of that tiny minority of corrupt scientists.

We are ALSO talking about the actions or motivations of the people who are LEADERS in the Global Warming game who . . . . finance research grants to the honest researchers (who are still pressured to deliver grant monies for their Universities, Think Tanks, Companies, etc.).

We are talking about those who put pre-conditions on research grants.

We are also focusing on those leaders who accept or reject scientific publications based on conflicts of interest that they don’t disclose but the public sometimes finds out about anyway.

We are referring to those LEADERS who put forth media agenda-driven “news” to manipulate public opinion.

We are discussing politicians who run around in the highest echelons in our Government still quoting the 97% farce to the general public (also putting the research community proverbially “on notice”).

We are concerned about leaders who say “you’re fired” or “you are suspended” because they dared to give a platform to . . . “deniers”.

This effects of all of this shenanigans has its own effects.

 

[JW55]

Usually when two scientists disagree about something, they will present evidence and use the scientific method, rather than simply declare “I can’t”. But if you want to ignore the data, that is your choice, I guess.

I thought I was doing just that.

Implement? I wasn’t saying anything about implementations. I have not taken a position on environmental regulation. There is no sense discussing implementations of anything if we don’t even agree on the current facts.

Of course they are limited. The question is, how limited are they? We can use data with limited accuracy as long as it is not too limited. In science we don’t just wave our hands over these terms. We quantify them. In the case of temperature reconstructions, they are not perfectly accurate, but they are accurate enough to say that a temperature rise of one degree C in 100 years has never happened before since the earth was inhabitable. Therefore such a rate is highly unlikely to have a natural cause.

Just to be clear, I am not an alarmist. I am not advocating carbon restrictions. I am not advocating banning SUVs. In fact I am not advocating anything, nor do I claim that a crisis is imminent. Others may have said things like that, but not everyone who agrees that global warming is a fact also agrees that we are doomed unless we do such and such. Like you, I believe in a pragmatic and fact-based approach.

In regard to data, I have seen data on the issue. Much of these conclusions are conjecture. The depth of information simply does not exist to form conclusive evidence in the period preceding written history. The timeframes in which you want to draw your conclusions are simply not long enough to make definitive determinations, Once again a theory, but not necessarily fact. Evidence is limited.

I can tell you that there is a high degree of subjectivity in dealing with geologic information, soil formation, the study of fossilized remains. We gather information on many parameters and with that information we try to connect the dots to form a proposed hypothesis as to identify a logical conclusion. It gives us a “theory” but it does not necessarily give us a “fact”.

Scientific research is also competitive and oftentimes the results of research are slanted or biased by who is doing the research and who is funding that research through grants. Would you have wanted the tobacco industry to notify you that smoking does not cause or contribute to lung cancer? Do you want the dairy and meat industry to determine that consumption of these products does not contribute to deposition of plaque in the arteries? In other words there is often a bias in research and one done in a manner to protect existing financial interests or to enhance or influence future financial interests.

 

[graciew]

Read the Kyoto Protocol for yourself (here is one link).

Yet we hear the Church talk of the “Principle of Subsidiarity”.

From Wikipedia here and Google here.

Please share this information with others.

I have been reading decreas,resolutions,laws here in relation to climate change among other environmental issues.

Also been invited to a couple of meetings with all the different presidents of alternative energy and enviromental companies,and local and national authorities ,related to environmentalism. And a foreign representative as well.
This does not mean I know much. Just that I have paid attention… at most.
But how subsidiarity applies here seems that each country must make its own provisions and all of us geared towards and end.
What I cannot see ,and I am asking you,is how so many experts not related among themselves coincide with the need to make provisions for good.
In other words,they are too sound to be taken in like this.
That some people want does not sound as they will.get it bypassing each and every expert and government. If it is what indeed they want.
So,basically,I do not understand such fears rationally. That is why I ask.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In regard to data, I have seen data on the issue. Much of these conclusions are conjecture. The depth of information simply does not exist to form conclusive evidence in the period preceding written history. The timeframes in which you want to draw your conclusions are simply not long enough to make definitive determinations, Once again a theory, but not necessarily fact. Evidence is limited.

I can tell you that there is a high degree of subjectivity in dealing with geologic information, soil formation, the study of fossilized remains. We gather information on many parameters and with that information we try to connect the dots to form a proposed hypothesis as to identify a logical conclusion. It gives us a “theory” but it does not necessarily give us a “fact”.

Scientific research is also competitive and oftentimes the results of research are slanted or biased by who is doing the research and who is funding that research through grants. Would you have wanted the tobacco industry to notify you that smoking does not cause or contribute to lung cancer? Do you want the dairy and meat industry to determine that consumption of these products does not contribute to deposition of plaque in the arteries? In other words there is often a bias in research and one done in a manner to protect existing financial interests or to enhance or influence future financial interests.

So, you think that temperature reconstructions are corrupted by big green energy companies? Where is your evidence? The reconstructions I posted are not even surprising. In fact they are quite boring. They just say that essentially not much happened. But to discredit the uniqueness of recent temperature rise, you would have to posit that there were a whole slew of similarly sudden temperature rises in the past, but they were covered up by the researchers in a conspiracy. Since there are independent researchers coming to the same conclusion in this regard, such collusion defies reason, short of some overwhelming evidence of said collusion, of which you have presented none, other than your personal feelings that there must have been collusion.

 

[josh987654321]

xkcd.com/1732/

Take a look at this graph to understand how extreme climate change is now. Naturally, it takes thousands of years for the average temperature to change by 1 degree C, but the temperature has risen by over 1 degree C in the last century.

The short timescale is what is meant by extreme climate change, not the overall change (though, we are on a path to reach an extreme there too.)

I think it’s safe to say ‘AHHHHHH!’

Now to this IMMEDIATE and MASSIVE action to limit emissions, what sort of thing does this entail? Abortion? Eugenics? Population Control? Dictatorship? Tyranny?.. who cares, just look at that graph! We need to do something radical and extreme and do it now! (Otherwise we ALL could perish along with the Earth, if that means we have to kill 10 million for the greater good and our survival, so be it!) questions/concerns come later.

…

Is it just me, or does this sound like a recipe for disaster? Sure seems to me like fertile ground for tyranny and other atrocities.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now to this IMMEDIATE and MASSIVE action to limit emissions, what sort of thing does this entail? Abortion? Eugenics? Population Control? Dictatorship? Tyranny?.. who cares, just look at that graph!

That is a non-sequitur. Nothing in Thursday1’s posting was about actions to limit emissions, immediate or otherwise. Perhaps you do have an issue with the Pope, though, since his message did mention action, although it was not specific about what that action may be. I seriously doubt that the vicar of Christ is so unaware of the moral issues involved that he needs your instruction.

 

[josh987654321]

That is a non-sequitur. Nothing in Thursday1’s posting was about actions to limit emissions, immediate or otherwise.

xkcd.com/1732/

It’s in the Graphic linked in the post, scroll to the end of the graph.

God Bless You

Perhaps you do have an issue with the Pope, though, since his message did mention action, although it was not specific about what that action may be. I seriously doubt that the vicar of Christ is so unaware of the moral issues involved that he needs your instruction.

Ouch.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s in the Graphic linked in the post, scroll to the end of the graph.

You may have an argument with Randall Monroe for the comment at the end of the graph, but that comment does not reflect on the validity of the graph before the projections into the future. And that is all Thursday1 was referring to.

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

As mentioned God will show us solutions if we pray – at least that helped me a lot, tho it required even more prayer to actually carry out the measures.

There are perhaps 1000s of solutions or mitigation measures for climate change. You may even come up with some new to me. We can pick and choose those that are easiest, that save us money or don’t cost, etc. The main principles are REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, become energy/resource efficient/conservative, and go on alt energy when feasible and affordable.

If we consider that perhaps every product entails GHG emissions in resource extraction, processing, transport, manufacturing, consuming, and waste disposing, then it is easy to see that [bold]REDUCE[/bold] is the 1st principle. We can ask – do we really need all this junk? Maybe we can have a garage sale and let others who need things we aren’t using put them to good use, which bring us to the 2nd important principle, [bold]REUSE[/bold]. That includes using the blank side of paper. I get most of my paper from the university library recycling bins, picking out sheets with blank sides.

Here is a starter list I have. Also note that these actions reduce other problems – reduce using up of finite resources, reduce various types of pollution generated in the extraction, processing, leakage, combustion, and waste disposal phases – and most save money, so they are well worth doing for a variety of reasons, not just to mitigate GW:

USE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
• Get 100% wind generated electricity from GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY, if available in your state (it is in Texas). Costs about same, Ph. 866-785-4668 or www.greenmountain.com

REDUCE consumption & buy things that last.

CONSERVE ENERGY:
• turn off lights not in use, etc.

DRIVE LESS:
• run multiple errands
• hypermile – go light on accelerator and breaks, etc. See ecomodder.com/forum/EM-hypermiling-driving-tips-ecodriving.php
• move closer to work/school on next move
• turn off engine in drive-thrus (if there is more than a 15 second wait at any station)
• bicycle, walk, take public transportation

ENERGY EFFICIENT items save $$ in long run:
• LED lights & compact fluorescent bulbs
• Energy efficient car, hybrid/electric car
• Appliances with Energy Star label
• SunFrost frig, 1/10 the energy; expensive, but saves $$ in long run (also reduces spoilage): www.sunfrost.com

CONSERVE WATER (requires energy to pump & heat it) and save $$hundreds/year:
• low-flow showerhead, toilet
• turn off water while brushing teeth
• don’t water lawn (grass is drought resistant),
• or, water only in early morning or evening, and not on windy days
• fix leaks
• Xeriscape (drought resistant plants)

REUSE, avoid throwaways. Use:
• back side of paper
• reusable cups, cloth napkins, diapers (optional )
• artificial Christmas trees
• buy at thrift shops, garage sales

RECYCLE (save resources & energy),

BUY RECYCLED PRODUCTS (paper, etc.)

PLANT TREES

GET YOUR WORKPLACE, SCHOOL, AND CHURCH TO REDUCE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

WRITE TO (or make a visit to) ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO HAVE THEM DO THE NEEDFUL RE THE ENVIRONMENT

• local gov officials tend to be more responsive, esp if you write to or visit them when they are running for office

I’m sure people can think of 100s of more ideas. I guesstimate that in the past 26 years we have been able to lower our GHG emissions by over 60% below our 1990 emissions – the more recent measures, going on Green Mt 100% wind-generated electricity in 2002 after moving to Texas; buying a Chevy Volt in 2012; and installing solar panels on our roof in 2013. These latter 2 (as well as nearly everything else we did) are saving us money, and since we retired in 2015, that’s a great help.

 

[lynnvinc]

I could also add that when I heard that Pope Francis as a Cardinal lived in a small apartment and took public transportation, that greatly endeared him to me. Then when I read that as he waited for the bus he bought the daily newspaper, recycled it, and at the end of the month returned all the rubber bands to the newspaper stall man, I thought, The Little Way of Environmental Healing!!

 

[lynnvinc]

xkcd.com/1732/

Take a look at this graph to understand how extreme climate change is now. Naturally, it takes thousands of years for the average temperature to change by 1 degree C, but the temperature has risen by over 1 degree C in the last century.

The short timescale is what is meant by extreme climate change, not the overall change (though, we are on a path to reach an extreme there too.)

The only problem with the graph is that it ends in 2100. Surely there will be people and life on planet earth after that that we need to be concerned about.

Even if we reduce our GHG emissions belatedly according to the something between the optimistic and current path, positive feedbacks will continue the warming trend: (1) the warming we have caused is melting sea ice, reducing albedo reflection & enabling greater absorption of heat & this will happen on a larger scale until all the sea ice is melted – same goes for snow cover on land, but to a lesser extent; and (2) the warming we have caused is melting methane hydrates in the ocean and permafrost containing trapped methane and carbon dioxide, causing release of vast quantities of methane, which is 25 times a more potent GHG than CO2, tho not as long-lived in the atmosphere, causing more warming, causing more CH4 release, causing more warming. It is thought that this process, known as the Methane Shotgun, greatly increased the warming during the PETM 55 million years ago, causing great extinction. And they say the Methane Shotgun is more fully loaded now.

It’s sort of like we are poking a giant sleeping dragon that can do great harm to us all – metaphorically “us,” since we won’t be around after 2100 or 2200 to suffer the consequences.

It’s a good idea to turn off lights not it use – oops, I left one on by mistake

 

[ucfengr]

As mentioned God will show us solutions if we pray – at least that helped me a lot, tho it required even more prayer to actually carry out the measures.

There are perhaps 1000s of solutions or mitigation measures for climate change. You may even come up with some new to me. We can pick and choose those that are easiest, that save us money or don’t cost, etc. The main principles are REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, become energy/resource efficient/conservative, and go on alt energy when feasible and affordable.

If we consider that perhaps every product entails GHG emissions in resource extraction, processing, transport, manufacturing, consuming, and waste disposing, then it is easy to see that [bold]REDUCE[/bold] is the 1st principle. We can ask – do we really need all this junk? Maybe we can have a garage sale and let others who need things we aren’t using put them to good use, which bring us to the 2nd important principle, [bold]REUSE[/bold]. That includes using the blank side of paper. I get most of my paper from the university library recycling bins, picking out sheets with blank sides.

Here is a starter list I have. Also note that these actions reduce other problems – reduce using up of finite resources, reduce various types of pollution generated in the extraction, processing, leakage, combustion, and waste disposal phases – and most save money, so they are well worth doing for a variety of reasons, not just to mitigate GW:

USE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
• Get 100% wind generated electricity from GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY, if available in your state (it is in Texas). Costs about same, Ph. 866-785-4668 or www.greenmountain.com

REDUCE consumption & buy things that last.

CONSERVE ENERGY:
• turn off lights not in use, etc.

DRIVE LESS:
• run multiple errands
• hypermile – go light on accelerator and breaks, etc. See ecomodder.com/forum/EM-hypermiling-driving-tips-ecodriving.php
• move closer to work/school on next move
• turn off engine in drive-thrus (if there is more than a 15 second wait at any station)
• bicycle, walk, take public transportation

ENERGY EFFICIENT items save $$ in long run:
• LED lights & compact fluorescent bulbs
• Energy efficient car, hybrid/electric car
• Appliances with Energy Star label
• SunFrost frig, 1/10 the energy; expensive, but saves $$ in long run (also reduces spoilage): www.sunfrost.com

CONSERVE WATER (requires energy to pump & heat it) and save $$hundreds/year:
• low-flow showerhead, toilet
• turn off water while brushing teeth
• don’t water lawn (grass is drought resistant),
• or, water only in early morning or evening, and not on windy days
• fix leaks
• Xeriscape (drought resistant plants)

REUSE, avoid throwaways. Use:
• back side of paper
• reusable cups, cloth napkins, diapers (optional )
• artificial Christmas trees
• buy at thrift shops, garage sales

RECYCLE (save resources & energy),

BUY RECYCLED PRODUCTS (paper, etc.)

PLANT TREES

GET YOUR WORKPLACE, SCHOOL, AND CHURCH TO REDUCE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

WRITE TO (or make a visit to) ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO HAVE THEM DO THE NEEDFUL RE THE ENVIRONMENT

• local gov officials tend to be more responsive, esp if you write to or visit them when they are running for office

I’m sure people can think of 100s of more ideas. I guesstimate that in the past 26 years we have been able to lower our GHG emissions by over 60% below our 1990 emissions – the more recent measures, going on Green Mt 100% wind-generated electricity in 2002 after moving to Texas; buying a Chevy Volt in 2012; and installing solar panels on our roof in 2013. These latter 2 (as well as nearly everything else we did) are saving us money, and since we retired in 2015, that’s a great help.

A lot of the things you suggest have nothing to do with mitigating global warming, and what’s the mechanism for enforcement? If the planet is in danger, then none of these things can be suggestions, they must be mandates enforced by the full majesty of the law. What, for example, should be the punishment for using an incandescent bulb? Using an incandescent bulb is literally killing people, so I suspect it should be severe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A lot of the things you suggest have nothing to do with mitigating global warming, and what’s the mechanism for enforcement? If the planet is in danger, then none of these things can be suggestions, they must be mandates enforced by the full majesty of the law. What, for example, should be the punishment for using an incandescent bulb? Using an incandescent bulb is literally killing people, so I suspect it should be severe.

Lynnvinc was not proposing that those measures be mandatory. That was your argument, which you now want to argue against? Look up Geri’s Game on YouTube.