4
4elise
Guest
And you (and I say 'you in the generic sense) may chose to live a life that ignores your responsibility to the poor - and do so based upon irrational fears
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
A connection always seems to develop between the ‘going green’ movements and population control. It is almost inevitable. The solutions proposed for global warming involve advocating for less consumption, smaller economies, less growth, fewer people. That leads into advocacy for population control in all its various forms, most of which are antithetical to the moral stances of the Catholic Church. And economically speaking, less growth means that people and nations stuck in poverty get to remain there indefinitely.I’ve been on that thread, and there is such an obvious connection between going green and eugenicsin the agenda of this current administration. It becomes more evident each time BHO “taps” another one of his people. I take comfort in the Holy Father’s leadership, in the recent encyclical.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’m just going to try to sum up a few points from both sides for my own edification. 
I think I can understand both sides (although perhaps I overestimate my abilities).
On the one hand, those who deny man-made climate change [hereafter MMCC] can easily be dismissed as over-indulgers who don’t want to inconvenience themselves by considering that they may have to change their own lifestyle for some greater good. They underestimate their own influence on the world.
On the other hand, those who believe in MMCC can be easily dismissed as controlling, big-government eugenicists who want to tell everyone else how to live in order to further their own agenda. They overestimate their own influence on the world.
I think we need to avoid both of the above caricatures. Perhaps these describe some people from both camps, but I do not think it describes anyone on this forum (at least I hope not!). I find it best to start with the assumption that other people are at least sincere in their beliefs, even if I believe them to be misinformed. None of us here are CEOs of oil companies nor are we executive producers of “An Inconvenient Truth.” In other words, I really don’t think greed is the motivating factor for anyone on this thread.
That said, we can still disagree about it. The simple truth is, either MMCC is happening, or it is not. It matters not what the motives are on either side. All that matters is what the evidence shows the reality to be. Some people find the evidence in favor to be compelling. Others do not. People have been posting link after link; I think it would take me a year to sort through all the citations and try to ascertain which ones are reliable and which ones are not.
I see no harm in being less wasteful. Indeed, it is usually cheaper to do so. I think the real arguments come in when we start talking about policies that are a bit more far-reaching. Some would love to see gas prices go up in order to dissuade people from using as much. And yet, it seems undeniable to me that this would hurt the poor the most. The wealthy can go on consuming as much as they always have without much thought. But the poor will shoulder the burden.
Now, if it’s between the poor suffering through rising gas costs or the whole world suffering a “Day After Tomorrow” type of global catastrophe, well, I guess we’d just have to suck it up. But I always hesitate when people propose solutions with immediately forseeable negative consequences with the hopeful expectation of staving off some hypothetical future “disaster”. Not that it could never be justified, but it most certainly gives me pause.
Okay, I guess I’ve gone on long enough. I’m just trying to bring some love to the thread. :grouphug:
I think I can understand both sides (although perhaps I overestimate my abilities).On the one hand, those who deny man-made climate change [hereafter MMCC] can easily be dismissed as over-indulgers who don’t want to inconvenience themselves by considering that they may have to change their own lifestyle for some greater good. They underestimate their own influence on the world.
On the other hand, those who believe in MMCC can be easily dismissed as controlling, big-government eugenicists who want to tell everyone else how to live in order to further their own agenda. They overestimate their own influence on the world.
I think we need to avoid both of the above caricatures. Perhaps these describe some people from both camps, but I do not think it describes anyone on this forum (at least I hope not!). I find it best to start with the assumption that other people are at least sincere in their beliefs, even if I believe them to be misinformed. None of us here are CEOs of oil companies nor are we executive producers of “An Inconvenient Truth.” In other words, I really don’t think greed is the motivating factor for anyone on this thread.
That said, we can still disagree about it. The simple truth is, either MMCC is happening, or it is not. It matters not what the motives are on either side. All that matters is what the evidence shows the reality to be. Some people find the evidence in favor to be compelling. Others do not. People have been posting link after link; I think it would take me a year to sort through all the citations and try to ascertain which ones are reliable and which ones are not.
I see no harm in being less wasteful. Indeed, it is usually cheaper to do so. I think the real arguments come in when we start talking about policies that are a bit more far-reaching. Some would love to see gas prices go up in order to dissuade people from using as much. And yet, it seems undeniable to me that this would hurt the poor the most. The wealthy can go on consuming as much as they always have without much thought. But the poor will shoulder the burden.
Now, if it’s between the poor suffering through rising gas costs or the whole world suffering a “Day After Tomorrow” type of global catastrophe, well, I guess we’d just have to suck it up. But I always hesitate when people propose solutions with immediately forseeable negative consequences with the hopeful expectation of staving off some hypothetical future “disaster”. Not that it could never be justified, but it most certainly gives me pause.
Okay, I guess I’ve gone on long enough. I’m just trying to bring some love to the thread. :grouphug:
G
Gabriella_San_S
Guest
Thanks, Joe. I can feel the Love.Okay, I guess I’ve gone on long enough. I’m just trying to bring some love to the thread. :grouphug:
And thanks to Elise and all the other conscientious posters from both camps whose reasoned responses and well meaning opinions have helped me to understand more clearly, the import and the myths of this timely topic. Good Work everyone.:hammering::clapping:
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
You make the erroneous assumption that I am not responsible to the poor. I am, but in a way that does not cut their throats and yours.
Global warming: the new name for eugenics
4
4elise
Guest
oh, the ‘you’ was in the generic sense, (as stated) no assumption intended.
4
4elise
Guest
This is a great post! And I do feel the love!I’m just going to try to sum up a few points from both sides for my own edification.
On the one hand, those who deny man-made climate change [hereafter MMCC] can easily be dismissed as over-indulgers who don’t want to inconvenience themselves by considering that they may have to change their own lifestyle for some greater good. They underestimate their own influence on the world.
On the other hand, those who believe in MMCC can be easily dismissed as controlling, big-government eugenicists who want to tell everyone else how to live in order to further their own agenda. They overestimate their own influence on the world.
I think we need to avoid both of the above caricatures. Perhaps these describe some people from both camps, but I do not think it describes anyone on this forum (at least I hope not!). I find it best to start with the assumption that other people are at least sincere in their beliefs, even if I believe them to be misinformed. None of us here are CEOs of oil companies nor are we executive producers of “An Inconvenient Truth.” In other words, I really don’t think greed is the motivating factor for anyone on this thread.
That said, we can still disagree about it. The simple truth is, either MMCC is happening, or it is not. It matters not what the motives are on either side. All that matters is what the evidence shows the reality to be. Some people find the evidence in favor to be compelling. Others do not. People have been posting link after link; I think it would take me a year to sort through all the citations and try to ascertain which ones are reliable and which ones are not.
I see no harm in being less wasteful. Indeed, it is usually cheaper to do so. I think the real arguments come in when we start talking about policies that are a bit more far-reaching. Some would love to see gas prices go up in order to dissuade people from using as much. And yet, it seems undeniable to me that this would hurt the poor the most. The wealthy can go on consuming as much as they always have without much thought. But the poor will shoulder the burden.
Now, if it’s between the poor suffering through rising gas costs or the whole world suffering a “Day After Tomorrow” type of global catastrophe, well, I guess we’d just have to suck it up. But I always hesitate when people propose solutions with immediately forseeable negative consequences with the hopeful expectation of staving off some hypothetical future “disaster”. Not that it could never be justified, but it most certainly gives me pause.
Okay, I guess I’ve gone on long enough. I’m just trying to bring some love to the thread. :grouphug:
I agree we do need to ‘pause’ and ensure that actions keep in mind the needs of the poor and that was the point of the original post.
I am of a mind that MMCC is happening and have really tried to make changes in my life that accept my own responsibility. Obviously if I’m wrong, these personal changes do no harm, so perhaps this is what I’m really advocating - personal choices that - IF MMCC IS HAPPENING - can make a difference. By eliminating meat, dairy, eggs, fish from my diet I am reducing my personal contribution - and it is because of my faith that I am willing to do this, my faith calls me to go beyond my own wants and consider that my choices might impact others… anyway - this may not be for everyone, but I just hope people will consider it.
E
Ender
Guest
This charge is unwarranted. You cannot seem to accept that those of us who say we disbelieve the theory that man is responsible for global warming actually mean it - and the consequence of that belief is that we oppose proposals we feel would at best have no effect at all but most likely would increase the suffering of the poor. There is simply no justification for charging that we are ignoring our responsibility to the poor when we - like you - act in a way that we believe is in their best interest.
I have not (in this thread) argued that AGW is false since that is not the topic. The question is whether there is a “Catholic” (viz moral) element contained in the positions taken and it should be quite clear that there is not. You push for specific actions that you believe are in the best interest of the poor. Fair enough, but when I oppose those actions based on my equally firm belief that those actions would be harmful, you have no basis for charging that I am somehow morally deficient. You may claim that I am intellectually deficient and am incapable of grasping the science involved but you may not challenge someones integrity simply because he understands differently than you.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
You are responding to something that was not directed to any of your posts.
I appreciate that because you do not believe that man is responsible for Climate Change - you do not believe you have any responsibility to make any changes in your life.
I believe Climate Change is real, that our actions impact it, and therefore believe that I am morally bound to make changes.
I completely agree that the actions to address this issue is where the debate should be - and I make no claim to know what they should be in the way of policies - just offer what I’ve done personally
- and posted what the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change offers, which again you obviously disagree with.
E
Ender
Guest
I agree with you on the point that you and all of us are bound to act in ways we believe are helpful. The position implied in the OP, however, was that on the question of climate change one position is more moral - more Catholic - than the other. This is the perception I reject. No one argues that we are not bound to act morally but in this particular case neither side can be considered more moral than the other which is why there is no specifically Catholic position to be taken on the issue.
Assuming that all parties in the discussion are acting in what they feel is the most beneficial manner - an assumption that simple charity requires we make in the absence of evidence to the contrary - there is no moral distinction to be made between the two positions on the validity of AGW and how one should respond to it.
Ender
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
4
4elise
Guest
So, do you think that the position should then be - if you believe in MMCC you should act in this way… - if not, go about your lives? Or are there SOME actions everyone should take ‘in the event that’ MMCC is real?
C
Corki
Guest
I believe that if you do not believe the MMCC is something we can affect with our own actions, you should be vigilant and watch out for harm that could be done to the poor and vulnerable by those pushing a MMCC agenda. It is not a 'go about your lives" mentality or burrying one’s head in the sand. But, as the Church says on this and many other social issues, prudence and wisdom are called for.
I think everyone is called to be a good steward of the earth. But there is no religious or scientific consensus about the best way to do that.
Here’s an example. I am not picking on you, but you have stated that you chose to give up meat and dairy as a personal contribution to reduce greenhouse gasses. I am not an expert, but it seems that the “culprit” when it comes to farming is the “factory farms.” Small farms, including dairy and stock animal farms, may be net reducers in greenhouse gasses. Large “factory” produce farms, especially those that truck their produce a long distance may be better than factory cattle raising but worse than small, local dairy/meat farms. So, if I chose to put my emphasis not on giving up meat but on purchasing meat and dairy from small, local farmers; who’s to say one path is better than the other?
The research is mixed, for sure. But if the above is true and we put pressure on developing countries to give up meat and dairy farming, which, in those countries is primarily done on small farms, we are not demonstrating protection for the poor but putting the poor in more danger.
The actions being put in motion by the MMCC warning folk, are likely to be harmful to the poor and vulnerable, at least in the short to mid term, both domestically and abroad. The moral question, in my mind, is not where do we stand on MMCC but how do we keep the government from hurting those who are most at risk?
4
4elise
Guest
Thank you Corki for a very thoughtful response - yes it is the response that matters, and I don’t think that there is anything in the information from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change that would imply otherwise. And I certainly agree it is COMPLICATED and that the issues of HOW to address this are up in the air - it is just that when so much energy is put into denying MMCC it removes the potential for a moderate - poor/vulnerable centered approach to the question -
From what I can see some of the issues are about balancing long term benefit against short-term challenges - and if one accepts MMCC than these may prove to be worth it - if one does not accept MMCC than the actions can not be justified.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That’s a nice succinct summary of the whole thread (and the whole issue from a Catholic perspective).
Now, how we resolve that is the hard part!
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
4
4elise
Guest
so… as people of faith… going back to the original post - what do you think we should do?That’s a nice succinct summary of the whole thread (and the whole issue from a Catholic perspective).
Now, how we resolve that is the hard part!
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Since all of the proposed “cures” for the alleged problem would cause more hardship than they reputedly would cure, then what we should do is nothing. The “do nothing” alternative is a reasonable alternative in many situations. Opposition to the “do something, anything” approach is increasing daily as more information filters down to the average person.
Right now, spokespersons such as Gore are pushing for rapid, panic-based action to tax and cripple the U.S. economy. When something like that is done and hurts the poor, then it is a serious sin. And then we learn that the big Wall Street firms and Gore will make BILLIONS of dollars on the carbon credit trade. They have a definite conflict of interest. [Watch and listen to Beck on Fox News.]
There ARE some things that can be done to improve the lot of the poor:
amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923
Improve science education so that everyone gets four years of math and four years of science in high school. We need to quit dumbing down our children.
There are many other things that can be done as well. For example, by cutting corporate tax rates economic growth will be stimulated. The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates (after Japan) of any major economy.
The U.S. tax code is so cumbersome that merely complying with it is overwhelmingly expensive. By shifting to the Fair Tax or to the Flat Tax [two different approaches, by the way], the tax burden on the average person would be drastically reduced.
Removing ALL Federal restrictions on health care insurance and by allowing the free market to function, would dramatically reduce the cost of health insurance. [Health CARE is already available … by visiting any emergency room.] There are HSAs and MSAs that are available but only in limited bases to a few people. By making medical expenses (including medical insurance) fully tax deductible for all, people would be encouraged to get their own portable insurance instead of depending on the uncertainties of employer-provided medical insurance coverage.
Getting back to climate change: FYI, Heartland Institute just now published “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” subtitle: How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?" by Anthony Watts. 28 pages. Soft cover. The Heartland Institute 2009.
A copy just arrived in the mail.
Free download at www.globalwarmingheartland.org
The point is that if there really isn’t a climate change problem, then it is utterly pointless to start taxing and controlling the economy to achieve a goal in an alleged crisis that doesn’t even exist.
Right now, spokespersons such as Gore are pushing for rapid, panic-based action to tax and cripple the U.S. economy. When something like that is done and hurts the poor, then it is a serious sin. And then we learn that the big Wall Street firms and Gore will make BILLIONS of dollars on the carbon credit trade. They have a definite conflict of interest. [Watch and listen to Beck on Fox News.]
There ARE some things that can be done to improve the lot of the poor:
- cut through the burden of lawsuits and approve 100 new nuclear powered electric generating stations to be completed within five years.
- remove the restrictions to oil and gas drilling off shore, on-shore and in Alaska. [Alaskan oil can be available in less than ONE YEAR. A pipeline 70 miles long to the vicinity of ANWR can be built in six months. And oil wells can be drilled in a month each. In addition, there are huge deposits north of Alaska that can be developed.] AND methane deposits in large quantities exist in the sea below 2000 feet and in solid state on the floor of the oceans. Visit www.energyvictory.net for more information on energy independence for automotive fuels.
- remove the restrictions placed on coal mining by President Clinton.
amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923
Improve science education so that everyone gets four years of math and four years of science in high school. We need to quit dumbing down our children.
There are many other things that can be done as well. For example, by cutting corporate tax rates economic growth will be stimulated. The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates (after Japan) of any major economy.
The U.S. tax code is so cumbersome that merely complying with it is overwhelmingly expensive. By shifting to the Fair Tax or to the Flat Tax [two different approaches, by the way], the tax burden on the average person would be drastically reduced.
Removing ALL Federal restrictions on health care insurance and by allowing the free market to function, would dramatically reduce the cost of health insurance. [Health CARE is already available … by visiting any emergency room.] There are HSAs and MSAs that are available but only in limited bases to a few people. By making medical expenses (including medical insurance) fully tax deductible for all, people would be encouraged to get their own portable insurance instead of depending on the uncertainties of employer-provided medical insurance coverage.
Getting back to climate change: FYI, Heartland Institute just now published “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” subtitle: How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?" by Anthony Watts. 28 pages. Soft cover. The Heartland Institute 2009.
A copy just arrived in the mail.
Free download at www.globalwarmingheartland.org
The point is that if there really isn’t a climate change problem, then it is utterly pointless to start taxing and controlling the economy to achieve a goal in an alleged crisis that doesn’t even exist.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
This was posted by ILM on www.climatechangedebate.org late last night. You need to sign in and use your real name to read or participate. So here is the post in its entirety [in two sections to meet the 6000 character per post limit]:
I write again about a Carl Duivenvoorden column
(telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/726744). In the case
of the latest, there is nothing wrong with a reminiscence about the progress
of the past few years. Unfortunately…the message that it was all
designed to support can be summed up in his reference to “the unprecedented
challenge of climate change” which he embellished with “an undeclared war,
yet a perilous threat to the planet as we know it”.
I have tried privately to inform Carl of facts regarding climate, but
his mind has been irreparably damaged by Al Gore and his error-filled “An
Inconvenient Truth”. I have sent Carl information explaining, step-by-step,
the manifold errors in AIT, yet he continues to give his talk based on the
Gore propaganda (there is no better word). I attended a presentation of one
of Carl’s talks last fall and one of the slides in the representation was a
variant of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph that purports to show that
the warming in the last century has been unprecedented in the past thousand
years. (I believe that the second attachment is that graph.) In fact, the
Mann “hockey stick” graph has been thoroughly discredited (I can supply full
details) because it was created using scientifically unsupportably methods
and it does not show the warm periods in the past millennium, periods when
it was warmer than it has been recently. The “hockey stick” has no
credibility among any informed audiences. Yet Carl was still showing it, and
drawing misleading conclusions from it, last fall and may still be doing so.
The fact that he resists the (name removed by moderator)ut of factual, scientific, information, is
an indication that his belief in a coming climate disaster ranks as a kind
of religious belief that he will not give up despite the facts.
Let me make some comments on this column. They apply to his earlier
writings equally well, though the form of the message may have varied from
column to column.
Let’s begin with “climate change.” The warmist alarmists used to say
“global warming”. For whatever reason, they changed this to “climate
change”. What are we to think? Climate has always changed and probably
always will. There has been a succession of warmer and cooler periods
throughout the world’s history, with or without the presence of Man. Now,
whether the world becomes warmer or cooler, it will be “climate change” and
the alarmists will be able to point at the event and say “See, we were
right.” The reality of that scenario is like tossing a coin with heads on
both sides and calling “Heads”. They can’t go wrong in the tiny world that
they created, but that world has nothing to do with reality. The reality is
that the world stopped warming a decade ago. Possibly the warmists are
preparing an escape from their previous positions?
Now, talking about “global warming”, the supposed danger that the
alarmists have been warning us about, we should note from the outset that
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. The world stopped warming ten years ago and has
been cooling since 2002. It is a matter of great interest that the warming
at the end of the last century coincided with the period of greatest solar
activity in hundreds of years and that that activity ended around the end of
the century. Periods in the past with low solar activity (which are
indicated by the lack of sunspots) have coincided with miserable cold
conditions of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum. We have had no
sunspots for an unusually long time. The world may well be headed into a
period of decades of colder climate. Certainly, reports from places all over
the world indicate unusually chilly conditions. We just have to look out our
windows in New Brunswick to see an unusually wet and chilly summer. One has
to ask: “WHAT warming?” (As for other favorite scare stories: the oceans are
not rising unusually, Antarctica continues to get colder and the ice grows,
and polar bear populations are healthy.)
Continuing with Carl’s column, he throws in a quote from the Lung
Association: “When you can’t breathe, nothing else matters.” This has
NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide or warming/cooling. It is a matter of
pollution, and carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. The gas is essential for all
plant life, and thus our own existence. No CO2, no us. Plants would actually
grow better with more CO2 in the air. There is just no point to Carl’s
statement. One has to question his motives.
I write again about a Carl Duivenvoorden column
(telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/726744). In the case
of the latest, there is nothing wrong with a reminiscence about the progress
of the past few years. Unfortunately…the message that it was all
designed to support can be summed up in his reference to “the unprecedented
challenge of climate change” which he embellished with “an undeclared war,
yet a perilous threat to the planet as we know it”.
I have tried privately to inform Carl of facts regarding climate, but
his mind has been irreparably damaged by Al Gore and his error-filled “An
Inconvenient Truth”. I have sent Carl information explaining, step-by-step,
the manifold errors in AIT, yet he continues to give his talk based on the
Gore propaganda (there is no better word). I attended a presentation of one
of Carl’s talks last fall and one of the slides in the representation was a
variant of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph that purports to show that
the warming in the last century has been unprecedented in the past thousand
years. (I believe that the second attachment is that graph.) In fact, the
Mann “hockey stick” graph has been thoroughly discredited (I can supply full
details) because it was created using scientifically unsupportably methods
and it does not show the warm periods in the past millennium, periods when
it was warmer than it has been recently. The “hockey stick” has no
credibility among any informed audiences. Yet Carl was still showing it, and
drawing misleading conclusions from it, last fall and may still be doing so.
The fact that he resists the (name removed by moderator)ut of factual, scientific, information, is
an indication that his belief in a coming climate disaster ranks as a kind
of religious belief that he will not give up despite the facts.
Let me make some comments on this column. They apply to his earlier
writings equally well, though the form of the message may have varied from
column to column.
Let’s begin with “climate change.” The warmist alarmists used to say
“global warming”. For whatever reason, they changed this to “climate
change”. What are we to think? Climate has always changed and probably
always will. There has been a succession of warmer and cooler periods
throughout the world’s history, with or without the presence of Man. Now,
whether the world becomes warmer or cooler, it will be “climate change” and
the alarmists will be able to point at the event and say “See, we were
right.” The reality of that scenario is like tossing a coin with heads on
both sides and calling “Heads”. They can’t go wrong in the tiny world that
they created, but that world has nothing to do with reality. The reality is
that the world stopped warming a decade ago. Possibly the warmists are
preparing an escape from their previous positions?
Now, talking about “global warming”, the supposed danger that the
alarmists have been warning us about, we should note from the outset that
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. The world stopped warming ten years ago and has
been cooling since 2002. It is a matter of great interest that the warming
at the end of the last century coincided with the period of greatest solar
activity in hundreds of years and that that activity ended around the end of
the century. Periods in the past with low solar activity (which are
indicated by the lack of sunspots) have coincided with miserable cold
conditions of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum. We have had no
sunspots for an unusually long time. The world may well be headed into a
period of decades of colder climate. Certainly, reports from places all over
the world indicate unusually chilly conditions. We just have to look out our
windows in New Brunswick to see an unusually wet and chilly summer. One has
to ask: “WHAT warming?” (As for other favorite scare stories: the oceans are
not rising unusually, Antarctica continues to get colder and the ice grows,
and polar bear populations are healthy.)
Continuing with Carl’s column, he throws in a quote from the Lung
Association: “When you can’t breathe, nothing else matters.” This has
NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide or warming/cooling. It is a matter of
pollution, and carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. The gas is essential for all
plant life, and thus our own existence. No CO2, no us. Plants would actually
grow better with more CO2 in the air. There is just no point to Carl’s
statement. One has to question his motives.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Here is the conclusion of ILM’s post to www.climatechangedebate.org late last night:
The talk at the G8 meeting of limiting the temperature rise to two
degrees (C) is simply laughable. It has NEVER been shown scientifically that
Man’s emissions of carbon dioxide have any effect on the global climate.
Even the much-criticized IPCC reports do not make this claim. Claims of a
relationship between climate and CO2 are based only on computer programs.
Anyone who has a clue about computers knows that they can be made to show
anything. It all depends on the (name removed by moderator)ut data and the algorithms used within
the program. Climate is the most complex scientific matter in our world and
the computer models just are not up to the job. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY
PROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE. See the graph in the first
attachment and note that temperature shows no relationship with CO2 level.
There is nothing that the G8 leaders can do about climate (except waste
vast amounts of money). They are issuing hot air.
I’ll comment on just one of the (name removed by moderator)uts to these climate-model computer
programs. The models, and the IPCC, are based on temperatures measured by
ground weather stations. Even in the USA, 89% of the stations surveyed
(about 80% of the total of 1216) were not capable of a sure reading within
+/- 2 to 5 degrees because the ground stations were located in cities and/or
near asphalt or concrete, buildings, air conditioner outlets, barbecues,
etc. (See www.surfacestations.org ) Yet these data are used to try to
compute averages down to two decimal places. It can’t be done! The
temperature data that they used, and on which the alarmists are basing their
claims, are basically worthless. Temperature readings by satellites,
considered much better, show no global warming.
I spend two to six hours researching climate EVERY DAY. I question that
Carl has done anything beyond attend one of Al Gore’s indoctrination
sessions that taught him how to present An Inconvenient Truth. Most
audiences are ignorant (= “not knowing”) about climate and have accepted his
message as being correct and accurate. Only by extensive reading, such as I
have done, can one learn the underlying facts. What we are seeing is the
Prester John Effect, media and other sources endlessly repeating information
on climate without ever checking if it is accurate. Most of what we hear
about climate in print, by radio and TV, and from “talking heads” is years
out of date. We are told repeatedly about the “melting arctic ice” when the
ice has actually recovered. (And this information ignores historic records
of a warm period in the 1940s when the ice retreated (not to ignore the fact
that the Northwest Passage was traversed several times in the last
century).)
We, the public, are just not being given up-to-date and accurate
information about climate. I submitted a Commentary on May 19 making many of
the same points that I have just made now, to inform the public about
climate facts. Was it printed? No. Why? I don’t know. But in the meantime we
have had more columns from Carl and others, and almost-daily “news” items
supporting the global warming…sorry, “climate change”…story. And
nothing to inform the public that global warming is not taking place.
My Commentary is appended at the end of this letter. For additional
supportive information, see:
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12865
It is not the job of newspapers or radio or TV to promote one idea over
another, yet that is what is happening with the subject of climate.
Unsupported and unsupportable assertions, like what is written in Carl’s
columns, appear regularly, yet the public is not able to learn that there
are thousands of people with scientific knowledge who cannot accept the
carbon-dioxide-is-the-cause-of-all-our-problems tale that is being spun
daily. Instead, the views of economists, political scientists, farmers, and
others without a scientific education are given prominence. Let Carl write
all he wants about improving efficiency and reducing fuel use. Anyone can
support those worthy aims. But keep him away from making comments about
climate, where he is wildly off base.
I call on the Telegraph-Journal to bring balance to its coverage of
climate matters. If someone like Carl makes an assertion about a “challenge
of climate change” when “global warming” simply is not happening, he should
be made to prove his assertion, not to simply foist it off onto an unknowing
public and thus increase their ignorance of the subject.
Furthermore, I challenge Carl or any other believer in anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) to a public debate, either in person or in the pages of
this newspaper on any and all aspects of this supposed “global warming”. A
copy of this letter is being cc’d to Carl, so he is now aware that I
challenge him to defend his assertions. It is time that this nonsense be
brought to an end.
/s/
I L M
The talk at the G8 meeting of limiting the temperature rise to two
degrees (C) is simply laughable. It has NEVER been shown scientifically that
Man’s emissions of carbon dioxide have any effect on the global climate.
Even the much-criticized IPCC reports do not make this claim. Claims of a
relationship between climate and CO2 are based only on computer programs.
Anyone who has a clue about computers knows that they can be made to show
anything. It all depends on the (name removed by moderator)ut data and the algorithms used within
the program. Climate is the most complex scientific matter in our world and
the computer models just are not up to the job. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY
PROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE. See the graph in the first
attachment and note that temperature shows no relationship with CO2 level.
There is nothing that the G8 leaders can do about climate (except waste
vast amounts of money). They are issuing hot air.
I’ll comment on just one of the (name removed by moderator)uts to these climate-model computer
programs. The models, and the IPCC, are based on temperatures measured by
ground weather stations. Even in the USA, 89% of the stations surveyed
(about 80% of the total of 1216) were not capable of a sure reading within
+/- 2 to 5 degrees because the ground stations were located in cities and/or
near asphalt or concrete, buildings, air conditioner outlets, barbecues,
etc. (See www.surfacestations.org ) Yet these data are used to try to
compute averages down to two decimal places. It can’t be done! The
temperature data that they used, and on which the alarmists are basing their
claims, are basically worthless. Temperature readings by satellites,
considered much better, show no global warming.
I spend two to six hours researching climate EVERY DAY. I question that
Carl has done anything beyond attend one of Al Gore’s indoctrination
sessions that taught him how to present An Inconvenient Truth. Most
audiences are ignorant (= “not knowing”) about climate and have accepted his
message as being correct and accurate. Only by extensive reading, such as I
have done, can one learn the underlying facts. What we are seeing is the
Prester John Effect, media and other sources endlessly repeating information
on climate without ever checking if it is accurate. Most of what we hear
about climate in print, by radio and TV, and from “talking heads” is years
out of date. We are told repeatedly about the “melting arctic ice” when the
ice has actually recovered. (And this information ignores historic records
of a warm period in the 1940s when the ice retreated (not to ignore the fact
that the Northwest Passage was traversed several times in the last
century).)
We, the public, are just not being given up-to-date and accurate
information about climate. I submitted a Commentary on May 19 making many of
the same points that I have just made now, to inform the public about
climate facts. Was it printed? No. Why? I don’t know. But in the meantime we
have had more columns from Carl and others, and almost-daily “news” items
supporting the global warming…sorry, “climate change”…story. And
nothing to inform the public that global warming is not taking place.
My Commentary is appended at the end of this letter. For additional
supportive information, see:
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12865
It is not the job of newspapers or radio or TV to promote one idea over
another, yet that is what is happening with the subject of climate.
Unsupported and unsupportable assertions, like what is written in Carl’s
columns, appear regularly, yet the public is not able to learn that there
are thousands of people with scientific knowledge who cannot accept the
carbon-dioxide-is-the-cause-of-all-our-problems tale that is being spun
daily. Instead, the views of economists, political scientists, farmers, and
others without a scientific education are given prominence. Let Carl write
all he wants about improving efficiency and reducing fuel use. Anyone can
support those worthy aims. But keep him away from making comments about
climate, where he is wildly off base.
I call on the Telegraph-Journal to bring balance to its coverage of
climate matters. If someone like Carl makes an assertion about a “challenge
of climate change” when “global warming” simply is not happening, he should
be made to prove his assertion, not to simply foist it off onto an unknowing
public and thus increase their ignorance of the subject.
Furthermore, I challenge Carl or any other believer in anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) to a public debate, either in person or in the pages of
this newspaper on any and all aspects of this supposed “global warming”. A
copy of this letter is being cc’d to Carl, so he is now aware that I
challenge him to defend his assertions. It is time that this nonsense be
brought to an end.
/s/
I L M
- Status