4
4elise
Guest
Thank you for stating that so clearly - I believe it is also a better term because people like to say -‘hey I wouldn’t mind it if it got a bit warmer here!’ with no consideration of the implications.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
The term “climate change,” like a good many things I read from the environmental lobby, is vague and amorphous enough to mean virtually anything.
The climate changes daily, weekly seasonally. I sure can’t argue that “climate change” isn’t occurring.
But I can certainly argue whether particular policies or legislation would be hurtful or helpful to people.
M
mapleoak
Guest
But in reality means nothing at all. It is like saying my dog is a color. Can’t argue with that. But I could argue that my dog is orange when someone says it is brown.
And while global warming for so many years was tooted as fact, and found to have no basis to stand on, the nebulous term of climate change had to be introduced and no doubt now tooted as fact. Of course it is fact because the climate does change. We don’t even need a scientist to tell us that. It is an all-inclusive term which means nothing and that of which a moral responsibility to effect a change or even the rate of change in the climate is not only non-existent, but probably futile as well.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ah! So we call it climate change in order to go back and base our conclusions on what global warming afficionados call “weather” if a “denier” calls attention to cooling.
I’m not a climatologist or a meterologist. But I spend a lot of time working outdoors, and I know for an absolute fact that it has been cooler than normal for the last three years where I live. (Yes, I know, that’s “weather”) Along with that, it has been rainier. That’s some global warming I could vote for. I have lived long enough to know we have had some intensely hot periods and some drought years; some of both lasting for years. And I’m sure we’ll see them again, because (comparing notes with my father and grandfather) they’re cyclical, in very long cycles. The REALLY cool one is awful in every way, and I sincerely hope we’re not in the early stages of that. Fortunately, it’s less frequently recurrent than the hot ones. Yes, yes, I know that’s anecdotal and based on “weather”.
Nevertheless, I believe my own skin when it tells me it’s hot or cool.
E
Ender
Guest
This is rather disingenuous. The determination of whether warming has or has not stopped now has nothing to do with how long it had been warming in the past. In fact, NOAA’s just-released Annual State of the Climate Report states that there has been virtually no warming from January 1999 to December 2008. Specifically, it says this:
The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.
As to whether this is a meaningless short term fluctuation or is in fact something significant they go on to say:
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
So, another five years of no warming and the models - along with the hype - are pretty much blown away.
These facts, however, have little to do with the (non) moral nature of climate change which is the topic of this thread.
Ender
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
From NOAA: Interesting colored map … cooler than average summer … except for Texas and the Pacific North West.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/10/noaa-july-temperature-below-average-for-the-u-s/
Decades ago, when there was atomic testing, strange weather was blamed on atomic testing. But … they eliminated atomic testing and the strange weather continued.
It would be interesting to try to find some of those headlines … it was before the internet.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/10/noaa-july-temperature-below-average-for-the-u-s/
Decades ago, when there was atomic testing, strange weather was blamed on atomic testing. But … they eliminated atomic testing and the strange weather continued.
It would be interesting to try to find some of those headlines … it was before the internet.
T
TEPO
Guest
—Introducing your new enemy.—
pantheism.net/
“Are you searching for a path that focuses on this Earth rather than some imaginary beyond, that makes saving the planet its focus not saving your eternal soul, that respects individual choice rather than pushing prejudice down people’s throats, that values reason rather than fanaticism?”
Huh, sound familiar?
pantheism.net/
“Are you searching for a path that focuses on this Earth rather than some imaginary beyond, that makes saving the planet its focus not saving your eternal soul, that respects individual choice rather than pushing prejudice down people’s throats, that values reason rather than fanaticism?”
Huh, sound familiar?
T
TEPO
Guest
This is the president of the pantheism movement.
“President
Dr Paul Harrison
California, USA
Environmental writer.
UN Environment Programme
Global 500
award winner.”
—Did he say UN Environment Programme? —
—The same one from: catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf—
" the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)
So the President of the Panthiest movement works for the UN, and the IPCC?
“President
Dr Paul Harrison
California, USA
Environmental writer.
UN Environment Programme
Global 500
award winner.”
—Did he say UN Environment Programme? —
—The same one from: catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf—
" the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)
So the President of the Panthiest movement works for the UN, and the IPCC?
T
TEPO
Guest
Honorary member of the Pantheism movement:
Dr James Lovelock
Originator of the
Gaia Theory
gaiatheory.org/
Dr James Lovelock
Originator of the
Gaia Theory
gaiatheory.org/
T
TEPO
Guest
C
Calliso
Guest
Of course what you are talking about here is weather not climate and you are talking about the US not the world. Anyway at least in the satilliete record it seems like it was actually a fairly warm july globally. global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/believe_it_or_not_it_was_a_war.html#comments Once the surface temperature analysis is done I will post that too.
C
Calliso
Guest
Actually there is warming globably from 1999 to currently see here. woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/trend And the point I was trying to make that clearly I am failing at is you have to look at the long term trend here. Not just a handful of years which is what many skeptics do. Climate is measured over like 20 -30 years not 10 or less. If you wanna see an even longer trend here is some proxies going back around 1000 or so years tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/brand-new-hockey-sticks/
I thought this was an interesting post as well. In case one is interested what how the different decades have trended since the 1970’s/ tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/#more-1673
But do you have a link to the NOAA report?
But these facts are important because whether or not global warming/climate change is happening and we are the cause of it is very important to the question of whether we are morally obilgated to do anything about it.
C
Calliso
Guest
And once again we are talking about the globe here not your little corner of the world. And I donlt think you understand what I said at all. What I was trying to say is that using the term climate change instead of just global warming we can express that it isn;t just quite as simple as the global average temperature is rising. Cause if that was happening other then maybe some tropical areas getting maybe a too warm well it probably wouldn;t be too much of a concern. It is also important to remember that even though so far in your opinion at least things are better where you live that doesn;t mean that that will hold out no matter how much the temperature rises. And it certainly doesn;t mean the same globally.
Really though what would you people like to us to call it? I guess I really donlt get this bickering over terms like climate change and global warming. Would rapid climate disruption be a better term? And sorry but I can;t help but think how weak the skeptic argument must really be if we are sitting here arguing the merits of using the term climate change versus the term global warming versus whatever else.
Q
querying
Guest
Calliso and 4elise,
Here’s a thought:
Why don’t you battle against so called climate change in your own time or within many secular groups that already exist?
Why do the both of you feel the need to drag the Church into this (unnecessary) battle?
What is it about Catholicism that you feel uniquely equips the Church to deal with this (non proven) problem?
It’s the nonsense that both you and 4elise post which contributed to my fall from the RC, and is why I’m in limbo between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Church.
Do you not see the damage your ideologies/agendas are causing, in particular amongst young Catholics, who simply wish to go to mass to hear about all things Christ related- and not the environment?
Take your earth worship outside of the Church.
Here’s a thought:
Why don’t you battle against so called climate change in your own time or within many secular groups that already exist?
Why do the both of you feel the need to drag the Church into this (unnecessary) battle?
What is it about Catholicism that you feel uniquely equips the Church to deal with this (non proven) problem?
It’s the nonsense that both you and 4elise post which contributed to my fall from the RC, and is why I’m in limbo between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Church.
Do you not see the damage your ideologies/agendas are causing, in particular amongst young Catholics, who simply wish to go to mass to hear about all things Christ related- and not the environment?
Take your earth worship outside of the Church.
C
Calliso
Guest
No offense but donlt read the thread if it bothers you so much. There is a whole forum here this is just one little topic. And I donlt see how caring about the enviroment is earth worship
Oh and by the way I am not even Catholic. I personally haven;t been arguing about whether or not the Church is oblijated to act. I have been arguing the scientific side of things.
T
TEPO
Guest
Dont waste your time. All the numbers are made up.
C
Calliso
Guest
sorry but I am not going to just take your opinion as fact here no offense.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, according to the US agency tasked with tracking the data, there was not. Global temperature in the decade from 01/1999-12/2008 went up 0.07 C ± .07 C. That is, the measured temperature increase falls within the margin of error of the measurements. Also according to NOAA, when the contribution from the El Nino - Souther Oscillation is removed the measured increase due to all other factors is exactly zero. I’m sure there are many miscellaneous web sites that have other interpretations but NOAA is as official as it gets.
Apparently your “skeptics” would include NOAA as well as that same report states that a fifteen year period of little or no warming would be inconsistent with the model predictions, which would constitute a severe blow to the entire warming scenario which is built entirely on the models.
Here is the link to the NOAA report; try pages 23-24.
If we have caused a significant problem and have the capability of redressing it then, yes, we are obligated to do so. No one, however, is morally obligated to believe either that we have caused a significant problem or that we could do anything about it. Given the science - or lack of it - behind the outcry, I see little reason to believe that that man is responsible for global warming or that he could do anything useful to reduce it. If I am wrong then that is a simple mistake but it is not immoral to be wrong. Taking a position on a scientific question is morally neutral. It is no more immoral to reject the theory of AGW than it is to reject the Big Bang theory.
Ender
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Personally, I would just as soon the whole thing got dropped, by whatever name.
I actually did understand the distinction you made. But since on one hand there are a bunch of scientists saying there’s global warming, and on the other a bunch of them saying there’s global cooling, and on a third hand a bunch of them saying it’s just a cycle, and on the fourth a bunch of them saying other atmospheric gases are the ones to blame, I prefer to pay attention to the reality I can feel, particularly when assuming that manmade global warming is a fact, promises to result in additional taxation and higher energy costs.
And, judging by the map provided above in the thread, it looks like cooling has affected a whole lot more than my “little corner” of the world. Kind of looks like most of the U.S. Yes, I know, that’s “weather”.
I make no pretense at all to having sufficient expertise to sift through all the “expert” opinions, models, graphs and prognostications and come up with the nugget of truth in all of it, whatever that might be. I am simply saying that because there is no real certitude concerning the matter, and since the assertions are contrary to my own experience and since there is big money to go to some and to be extracted from others in a “cure” that won’t cure anything because the big CO2 emitters won’t go along, I can’t be persuaded that cap and trade is a good thing to do to the people of the U.S.
T
TEPO
Guest
Check this out. Scarry stuff. This is Paul Harrison who writes for the U.N. (Leader of the Pantheins)
144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/ecothi1030.html
“Three factors work directly on the environment.
Population - the number of people.
Consumption - the amount each person consumes.
Technology decides how much space and resources are used, and how much waste is produced, to meet consumption needs.”
“We cannot pick and choose which elements to work on. We must work on population, consumption and technology, and on all the factors that influence them.”
“Humans do not remain passive in the face of environmental problems. They adapt. They change technologies and consumption patterns in response. They change their fertility behaviour.”
Gee does that mean this guy is pro-abortion?
Not saying anyone here thinks like this, but were going need to watch out for this guy and all his evil ideas! He has some prominent people on board with him. We should be careful.
144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/ecothi1030.html
“Three factors work directly on the environment.
Population - the number of people.
Consumption - the amount each person consumes.
Technology decides how much space and resources are used, and how much waste is produced, to meet consumption needs.”
“We cannot pick and choose which elements to work on. We must work on population, consumption and technology, and on all the factors that influence them.”
“Humans do not remain passive in the face of environmental problems. They adapt. They change technologies and consumption patterns in response. They change their fertility behaviour.”
Gee does that mean this guy is pro-abortion?
Not saying anyone here thinks like this, but were going need to watch out for this guy and all his evil ideas! He has some prominent people on board with him. We should be careful.
- Status