USCCB offers principles for addressing climate change [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Good that you acknowledge that meteorology really is a scientific discipline. And they really do take worldwide conditions into account because they have to (a small example being the relationship between ocean temps off southeast Asia and the north Atlantic and rainfall in the central U.S.) They take the sun’s radiation and the earth’s tilt and wobble into account…again, because they have to. They do take albedo into account because they have to.

And, again, the majority of them do not believe in MMGW.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are getting your stats re majority, but I known of a couple of meteorologists connected to fossil fuels, who do not believe in MMGW, but since they are NOT climate scientists in that they are NOT studying climate (and publishing in top science journals about climate), I don’t really take their word seriously. Another couple of meteorologists I know do take MMGW seriously, but they are humble enough to defer to the real climate scientists on what’s happening.

So whatever these denialist meteorologists’ arguements are, I’m pretty sure they’ve been shot down over and over and over again by real climate scientists who know what they are talking about, bec they are actually studying climate (not meteorology).
…You have made your choice who you believe in, as have I.
Click to expand...
And I think it’s best to “expect and try to avert the worst, while hoping and praying for the best.” The idea of just letting catastrophe overtake us and wipe out most if not all of life on earth doesn’t sit well with me. No one here can convince me to stop mitigating climate change, no matter what.

I’ll pray that you all are right and I am wrong, but I won’t stop doing what I see is the right thing. You all have to live with your own consciences on this matter.
 
livingwordunity said:
I believe that “climate change” is another excuse for the government to take more of taxpayer money to give it to the funding of abortions, the “gay” agenda, election campaigns, and other corrupt causes. Today’s government is too ingrained with hypocrisy
Click to expand...
How is getting off the grid, driving your car on energy you produce, becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative, and saving lots of money in the process leading to homosexuality, funding abortion, and paying more taxes? Doesn’t compute in my books.

I’m a straight Catholic, married to my one and only husband for over 44 years, and have always been against abortion, divorce, and sins of all types, including profligate/prodigal living and killing people. And we’ve been saving money hand over fist doing the EC (environmentally correct) things for over 40 years, even more so over the past 23 years.

Apparently the body-snatcher boogymen haven’t gotten to me yet. :eek:
 
lynnvinc said:
%between%

Actually, no.

Skeptics like to look at original data.

You know … the stuff that the warmers ACTUALLY THREW AWAY … you remember that, right? … they - threw - out - the - original - data.

Seriously … you remember that? Right?

Anyway, rather than presenting a bumper sticker, which warmers enjoy reading, here is a brief excerpt from the article presented. Click on the actual article to see the graph referred to. *

**By including that huge part of the data usually left out, we see that the line looks virtually flat.

The actual changes look relatively so small, compared with those rises and falls of several whole degrees the world survived in the past, that any idea that we are facing catastrophic warming pales into insignificance.

In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all had to concede that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill***.

Of course, there was a modest temperature rise in the 20th century, as a continuation of the warming that began 200 years ago as the world naturally emerged from those centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age.

But the 0.5C rise between 1976 and 1998 was no greater than the 0.5C rise between 1910 and 1940 (with 35 years of cooling between them, so that the net rise in the past century has been only 0.8C).

Yet it was on that modest rise in the 1980s and 1990s that the whole of the greatest and most expensive scare in history was launched on its way, with all the terrifying political and economic consequences we see around us today.

The very last people to recognise this, alas, will be our politicians, because they seem incapable of looking properly at the evidence.

The price we are all increasingly having to pay for their gullibility is incalculable.
Click to expand...
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Actually, no.

Skeptics like to look at original data.…

You know … the stuff that the warmers ACTUALLY THREW AWAY … you remember that, right? … they - threw - out - the - original - data.

Seriously … you remember that? Right?..
Click to expand...
No, science is based both on theory AND evidence, and the greenhouse theory has been around and well accepted for over 100 years. They were not exactly sure how much warming there’d be some 30 years ago, because they weren’t sure how much the aerosol effect would be (which causes cooling, but the molecules only last a few weeks in the atmosphere compared to the 100s & 1000s of years CO2 lasts). They also did not know how much the ocean would play a role in absorbing the heat. However, at least one climate scientist was very accurate in his mid-range projection.

Re the data, they have actually been tweaking the raw data downwards in the process of normalizing it and making it better reflect reality, so that means more warming would be shown with the raw data, not less. (I think the issue you refer to is CRU had to throw away some of the raw data they had paid to get – and you too can pay to get it for the right price – but other centers that analyze climate, like GIS, did NOT throw out their raw data … and their findings do jive with CRU findings). There is no data showing that global average temps are now at pre-1960s levels.

But for those who have a hard time with numbers, we can simply watch the ice melt, like in the arctic and most glaciers around the world. And consider the 5000 year old “ice man” of Europe and “ice woman” of S. America that were discovered a few years back as the ice was melting. Oh yeah I forgot, people with frost-free refrigerators won’t have a clue that warmth melts ice.

Okay, back to square one. Once a skeptic, always a skeptic, I guess.

I suppose if they were finding that global warming was a really good thing having all positive effects, then people would be accepting the science, or ignoring it, the way they do with most science.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
…The price we are all increasingly having to pay for their gullibility is incalculable.
Click to expand...
The price we are all increasingly having to pay for the warming we are causing is incalculable. Perhaps leading to the loss of most, even all life on earth.

Not to mention all that money people are losing by not mitigating climate change. At least my husband and I are laughing all the way to the bank with our mitigation savings. Too bad others are such losers (and harmers).
 
lynnvinc said:
Yep, scientists don’t know the sun causes warmth. Fortunately I do, so I think I’ll email or blog them about that. You know they are pretty open people, always eager to scrutinize new information. You ought to get to know them, instead of hanging solely around denialist trapsites.
Click to expand...
I am sure one can find useful information on both the deniers’ and the deceivers’ trapsites. I am equally sure that on this subject no useful information whatever can be gleaned from the USCCB.

Ender
 
lynnvinc said:
The price we are all increasingly having to pay for the warming we are causing is incalculable. Perhaps leading to the loss of most, even all life on earth.

Not to mention all that money people are losing by not mitigating climate change. At least my husband and I are laughing all the way to the bank with our mitigation savings. Too bad others are such losers (and harmers).
Click to expand...
First, crops do better in warmer climates than in colder climates.

So, things will get better, not worse in a warmer climate.

Second, the theory is that the climate will warm by ONE DEGREE over the next 100 years. Absolutely imperceptable to the human detection system.

Third, the best evidence is that carbon dioxide continues to increase, but the temperature has not changed in 16 years or so. So the theory fails.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
First, crops do better in warmer climates than in colder climates.

So, things will get better, not worse in a warmer climate.
Click to expand...
I too thought we’d all have to move up to Canada, but apparently from one who lives there the arctic circle is not fertile enough to grow enough crops to feed the world. It will be a vicious, killing musical chairs of ever diminishing food for the world. But since that’s was ya’ll want, that’s what we’re getting – maybe not for this generation, but for future ones.
Second, the theory is that the climate will warm by ONE DEGREE over the next 100 years. Absolutely imperceptable to the human detection system.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s even in the low-end project. The mid-projection is some 3C (which would set in motion positive feedbacks from decreasing albedo and methane release from melting permafrost & ocean hydrates, that could increase it over the next few centuries to 6C warming. The high end projection is 6C, which pretty much will lead to doom for most life on earth. When there was a 6C warming some 251 mill yrs ago during the massive end-Permian extinction, over 90% of life on earth died.
Third, the best evidence is that carbon dioxide continues to increase, but the temperature has not changed in 16 years or so. So the theory fails.
Click to expand...
That’s bec we’ve been in a deep solar irradiance minimum, during which if there had been no enhanced greenhouse effect from our emissions the earth would have cooled down to 1960s level, and it did not, but it stayed up high, thereby proving climate change is real.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

Now that it looks as if the sun is headed toward its irradiance maximum, there may be faster warming in the works over the next decade or so as the greenhouse effect piggy-backs on increasing irradiance (barring any cooling effects, such as volcanoes).

Although people here think the scientists are a bunch of nitwits, it may be a surprise to know that climate scientists are aware of all the factors that impact climate, not just GHGs. And they are humble enough to say there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. So who knows; God only knows. Perhaps my fervent prayer to God to end global warming had some impact on making the solar minimum a deeper one…
 
lynnvinc said:
Although people here think the scientists are a bunch of nitwits, …
Click to expand...
No, not nitwits. They’re certainly smart enough to get on the grant gravy train, and I don’t particularly doubt the “climate scientists” are skilled in their own diverse fields.

But it really stretches things to tell me and others that we need to freeze in the dark and ride bicycles in the snow because of what some self-styled “climate scientist” says whose real field is, e.g., the study of ants.

As I have said before, saving money by conserving energy is always a good idea. But the mainstream of MMGW believers want a lot more of us than that. In particular, they want money, and lots of it. And they want us to pay the price while the most visible proponents don’t practice what they preach. Not a formula that inspires one to believe what they claim.
 
Does anyone know if the Cardinals purchased Carbon Offsets for the ballot smoke they sent up today? :rolleyes:
 
There are a host of problems here with the entire climate change “controversy”.

For example, the idea that “the ongoing warming is real”. There is no ongoing warming. Even worse according to the satellites there has been no GHG warming for the last 34 years. The warming arguments are all based on the goofy surface statistical models. The temperature readings read high as much as 5 degrees … so before you even get started, the computer models are wrong … so, the 1 degree increase becomes automatically a 3 degree DECREASE … before any further discussion!

THE TEMP DATA USED FOR (name removed by moderator)UT WAS NEVER AUDITED before being used.

There are just SOOO many problems withe the alleged science of global warming … which is WHY they started calling it CAGW … trying to panic everybody into accepting the alarmism … by changing the name to CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!

[SO, no, the sky is not falling.]
 
The CAGW advocates proclaim to make the logical implication that Man causes global warming.

But I only see a bunch of disjointed arguments that exclude a lot of other critical pieces of information, such as the the behavior of the climate prior to anthropogentic CO2 emissions.

For example, some imply that the upper atmosphere never naturally shrinks and cools and the tropopause never naturally rises. But, this is the bogus steady state assumption that underlies most of AGW. We know that the atmosphere expands with temperature … caused by the sun … and when we get a spike in temperature, the atmosphere expands enough to cause enough atmospheric drag to bring down satellites prematurely.

Contrary to some statements, the sun’s output is not constant. The sun is subject to sudden explosions of energy release of all different types. We can see sun spots … which are an INDICATOR of increased solar output … not necessarily the cause … and when sun spots drop off, the earth’s temperature cools suddenly. And when solar output spikes up, the Earth experiences all kinds of disruptions ranging from massive electrical failures to premature re-entry of satellites.

We now know that natural climate is a large system of naturally occurring oscillators including El Nino.

Then there are the arguments based on questionable statistical models in addition to ruling out natural variability.

Then there is a non sequitur … showing that there has been more combustion which no one denies. This has nothing to do with what has caused the CO2 increase. In fact, if you check out the actual time lags, then you learn that the earth warms … and THEN, the carbon dioxide increases. But then, where does the CO2 come from??? The ocean! The ocean is a vast store of carbon dioxide and a minor increase in temperature releases it.

Then there is the greenhouse effect which is the starting point for the debate not the end point. But the metaphor is incorrect because the Earth has clouds and greenhouses do not have clouds. Clouds are VERY important to climate.

So you need to stop specializing in presenting one side of he debate as though it were the only side.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Even worse according to the satellites there has been no GHG warming for the last 34 years.
Click to expand...
See the satellites are way up there in the stratosphere, above the GHG area, where it has been predicted that it would become colder, since less heat is escaping our atmosphere, due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
 
So what do you think of our new pope? He may or may not agree that AGW is happening, so he may or may not say anything about it. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue mitigating…bec doing so is also reduces other environmental harms and saves resources for future generations, and is saving us money.

It seems Pope Francis would be in favor of a simple and frugal lifestyle of a more religious nature. There are those who are much better at mitigating AGW than me, but have no idea that they are mitigating AGW while living in simplicity.

I think it would be good if people living well above the poverty line were to simplify and live a more frugal and holy life. Mitigating AGW, with its focus on doing good for others, sort of dovetails in with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top