Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[lynnvinc]

The truth self evident in this chart best articulates why warmist avoid responding to skeptics
(Hint - the models have failed the scientific method)

Cherry picking:

1. You are using WRONG DATA from your favorite weatherman’s (not climate scientist) site. The temps higher in the atmosphere (which are mixed into those balloon and satellite data sets) actually get cooler with the enhanced greenhouse effect, as that effect is not allowing as much heat to escape. Christy, the author of that graph, is notorious for promoting such data on unsuspecting audiences, and his data have been found flawed on other grounds, as well.
2. You fail to include the models that underestimated today’s level of warming IF there were greater uptake of the warming in the deeper ocean, as has been the case. Here are Hansen’s projections made back in 1981:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those who are afraid their piggy banks will be squeezed, 1st of all, life trumps money (which is just something that facilitates exchanges). The biological-ecological system is fundamental to life; the economy is contingent and instrumental. We need food more than grocery stores, tho grocery stores facilitate getting that food we need.

2nd, if ye seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness all things will be given unto you; that is, strangely enough mitigating climate change saves money and improves one’s well being. Halleluia! Thanks be to God, who grants us what we need.

If Obama doubles my utility bills, I’ll be okay. I might even find a way to make it pay. But a lot of people won’t be okay. It’s not a matter of whether piggy banks get squeezed, but whose piggy bank gets squeezed for the benefit of whom.

And so, for example, politicians subsidize their favorite “alternative energy” sources that would not otherwise make money. Some people benefit from those subsidizes and some end up paying for them. One recalls the truly massive subsidies, the receipt of which you have expressed such pride in previous threads. Those weren’t free. Somebody else paid those subsidies which benefitted you.

Those who will get squeezed the most are those who are least able to access the funds of others. One is reminded of Obamacare in that regard. Some middle class people receive heavy subsidies, and other middle class people pay for them.

“Cash for clunkers” was another classic example. People who could afford brand new cars anyway got subsidized to buy them. The perfectly serviceable cars they turned in are the resource the poor use, because the poor can’t afford anything but “clunkers”. And it was all done in the name of reversing “climate change”. (or was it still “manmade global warming” then?)

 

[Theo520]

Cherry picking:

1. You are using WRONG DATA from your favorite weatherman’s (not climate scientist) site. The temps higher in the atmosphere (which are mixed into those balloon and satellite data sets) actually get cooler with the enhanced greenhouse effect, as that effect is not allowing as much heat to escape. Christy, the author of that graph, is notorious for promoting such data on unsuspecting audiences, and his data have been found flawed on other grounds, as well.
2. You fail to include the models that underestimated today’s level of warming IF there were greater uptake of the warming in the deeper ocean, as has been the case. Here are Hansen’s projections made back in 1981:

Lynn,
Why do you critique my source yet excessively reference material from John Cook? John has zero training in climate science and his work experience was as self employed cartoonist and web developer. He’s currently a psychology grad student. In contrast, Christy is a climate scientist of pedigree

Why do you reference a Hansen chart not updated past 2000? Ignoring the past 15 years of data is cherry picking at it’s worst.

You seem to be fighting a strawman

• you are obviously agreeing the bulk of the models got it wrong, since they missed deep ocean heating.
• you assume assume I dispute radiative forcing, which I don’t

What I am showing is that the models everyone has been depending upon have failed the Scientific Method. Ergo their predictions of catastrophic outcomes must be discarded.

Perhaps new models that incorporate deep ocean heating will prove themselves, but that will take additional observation.

 

[Theo520]

Since Lynn mentioned Hansen, let’s look at how his predictions have performed against observation (ie. Scientific Method)

Hansen/NASA modeled three scenarios based on different CO2 levels. Focusing on the two extreme scenarios:
The bright green curve predicted temperatures if GHGs were not curtailed.
The cyan (aqua) curve predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed.

RESULTS: Our CO2 levels in fact grew above his assumptions for the green curve, but resulting temperatures are below is best case scenario of no CO2 growth. This is irrefutable proof that his model assumptions were wrong.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ec1576970d-400wi

 

[KSU]

Only the part of the Church that truly understands the issue of CC will understand that CC is the mother-of-all-life issues

The Roman Catholic Church does not have parts that believe differently from other parts: “We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

However, both the pagan church of The Great God Science, and the heretical Americanist church (not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church in America) have parts that believe differently from their other parts. Americanism: The movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Emphasizing the “active” virtues of social welfare and democratic equality, it underrated the “passive” virtues of humility and obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Americanism was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in an apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae (January 22, 1899), addressed to Cardinal Gibbons.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thousands of scientists reject anthropocentric climate change? Really? What thousands, in what fields, where? The fact of the matter is that over 97% of scientists in the field of climate science accept the claims of human-caused climate change, and in moving beyond the field of those most knowledgeable about the topic, there remains a consistently overwhelming majority of scientists in other fields who also accept the science on the issue. No international or national scientific body of any recognized standing in the world denies the science, and nearly every such body in the world in Physics, Biology, Meterology, Geology, and every other field on the planet has indicated its acceptance of the science. Who are these “thousands” of scientsts holding contrary positions?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Boggles the mind that yet there are still some people who reject all of these scientists. I’m just glad the Vatican hasn’t.

 

[ucfengr]

Boggles the mind that yet there are still some people who reject all of these scientists. I’m just glad the Vatican hasn’t.

The 97% consensus is a myth.

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

-]/-]

The 97% consensus is a myth.

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

That’s James Taylor’s opinion in the opinion piece you cited as if it were a news article. Frankly I think his view is more of a myth.

 

[weller2]

If Obama doubles my utility bills, I’ll be okay. I might even find a way to make it pay. But a lot of people won’t be okay.

Meanwhile in Zimbabwe

It’s 1.55 pm, and Nigel Mavhengere’s “street office” is set up: laptop, makeshift cardboard table and a portable 75-watt solar panel. He’s selling pirated music and installing mobile phone applications, such as WhatsApp, for some of Zimbabwe’s 4.2 million smartphone users.

“Business is bad today,” complains the 21-year old, who works on the pavement of a busy, vendor-strewn area in downtown Harare. “On a good day, I should have sold at least $15 worth of stuff by now.”

The salesmen connect their computers to their $25 panels using car power adaptors, providing direct power from the sun. With inbuilt batteries, the solar packs can also provide power for a time when the sun isn’t shining.

Hold on there. If the guy makes $15 per day, and a panel costs $25, then it pays itself back after 2 days. So much for renewables being expensive.

Zimbabwe has struggled with power shortages for 15 years, and is now looking to solar and hydropower to make up the gap. The country’s power utility, Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) says it is able to meet only 50 percent of the current 2,200 megawatts demand due to frequent breakdowns of aging equipment.

Collapse of fossil civilization in practice: the society can no longer afford servicing the power grid, so it starts failing. As a result, essential services can no longer be provided. See Greer and Korowicz for detailed description.

Gloria Magombo, the chief executive at the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (ZERA), told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that Zimbabwe targets adding 300 megawatts of grid solar power within the next two years.

300MW is 13.6% of demand. At this rate they should be able to cover shortfall capacity (1000MW) in 6-7 years.

Magombo said solar energy is used by only 18 percent of Zimbabweans, so could see big growth - but she fears that growth could also lead to a surge in poor quality solar devices.

Only 18%?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hold on there. If the guy makes $15 per day, and a panel costs $25, then it pays itself back after 2 days. So much for renewables being expensive
I had always thought a buck a watt was the holy grail of solar panels. Now you say someone in Africa can buy a 75-watt panel for $25? You mean somehow the price (even in small quantities) has fallen to 33 cents a watt? I would love to buy solar panels at that price. Do I have to travel to Africa to do that?

 

[Ender]

Boggles the mind that yet there are still some people who reject all of these scientists. I’m just glad the Vatican hasn’t.

The 97% statistic is for the consumption of the uninformed. The scientists who actually work on the problems understand that the discrepancy between the models and the facts is serious and unexplained, as I pointed out. Here is more from the interview of Der Spiegel with Hans von Storch.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are* two conceivable explanations** – and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.*
In this quote Storch speaks directly to the people who think like you do.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth.
Storch is a lead author for the IPCC, who believes in MMGW, and is a real heavyweight in the climate debate. The only difference between him and most others on that side is that he is at least willing to acknowledge what is, and is not, known.

Ender

 

[Tarquin]

I support global warming. As the world population continues to increase, global warming will open up new areas to agriculture. Also, the elderly and weak in places like New York, especially now with the Obamanomics effect on coal prices, will not die so abundantly during the East Coast’s frigid winters. Not to mention places like Siberia, norther Canada, and Greenland. It would be well if the ice caps melted a little, too. That would provide more water for the earth’s teaming billions. The more people there are, the greater the amount of water must be carried about in their bodies. As the population increases, the amount of free water, mutatis mutandi, will actually decrease. I have relatives in Nebraska. They would like it if they could farm all year long. Saskatchewan farmers, too.

 

[KSU]

Boggles the mind that yet there are still some people who reject all of these scientists. I’m just glad the Vatican hasn’t.

The Pope stated during an audience with the Italian Science and Life Foundation that “The plague of abortion is an attack on life. Allowing our brothers and sisters to die in boats in the Strait of Sicily is an attack on life. Death at the workplace, because minimum safety conditions are not respected, is an attack on life. Death because of malnutrition is an attack on life. Terrorism, war, violence, euthanasia as well, is an attack on life.” thecompassnews.org/2015/06/pope-francis-lists-abortion-unsafe-workplaces-among-attacks-on-life/

Strange he did not mention the mother of all life issues: MMGW .

 

[sps49]

The 97% statistic is for the consumption of the uninformed. The scientists who actually work on the problems understand that the discrepancy between the models and the facts is serious and unexplained, as I pointed out. Here is more from the interview of Der Spiegel with Hans von Storch.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are** two conceivable explanations** – and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
In this quote Storch speaks directly to the people who think like you do.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth.
Storch is a lead author for the IPCC, who believes in MMGW, and is a real heavyweight in the climate debate. The only difference between him and most others on that side is that he is at least willing to acknowledge what is, and is not, known.

Ender

If you dig into it a bit, you discover that the attribution argument is still very much up in the air, putting the “97%” in a different light. Maybe the “97%” are “hoping” that they are right.

 

[estesbob]

If you dig into it a bit, you discover that the attribution argument is still very much up in the air, putting the “97%” in a different light. Maybe the “97%” are “hoping” that they are right.

If you dig into the issue you’ll find out there really is no basis for the 97% figure. But it’s one of those myths that has taken on a life of its own kind of like the old canard that domestic violence increased on Super Bowl Sunday . It’s just the " argument to authority" fallacy taken to absurd lengths.

 

[Darryl1958]

… Allowing our brothers and sisters to die in boats in the Strait of Sicily is an attack on life…
Strange he did not mention the mother of all life issues: MMGW .

I wonder what that means.
Are their rescue boats in Sicily waiting around until everyone drowns before moving in to salvage the empty boat, or something like that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you dig into the issue you’ll find out there really is no basis for the 97% figure. But it’s one of those myths that has taken on a life of its own kind of like the old canard that domestic violence increased on Super Bowl Sunday . It’s just the " argument to authority" fallacy taken to absurd lengths.

Read the first paragraph of this description. of argument to authority and see if it qualifies.

 

[KSU]

I wonder what that means.
Are their rescue boats in Sicily waiting around until everyone drowns before moving in to salvage the empty boat, or something like that?

The Pope is referring to the immigrants fleeing the tender mercies of the Islamic terrorists. rte.ie/news/2013/0810/467463-six-migrants-die-off-sicily-as-boat-runs-aground/

Shame on us and the entire free world for winking at the unspeakable barbarism resulting from our “enlightened” abandonment of the Bush policy. The free world, once again, no longer eliminates unspeakable barbarism before it grows too powerful, a la the Socialist Nazis et al. No one pays attention to those at the Vatican who are calling for military intervention.

So, the world (starting with Christians and the poorest of the poor in the Middle East and Africa) is beginning to pay the horrible price of winning the current war against evil.

But, don’t worry, the leader of the free world has just assured us that MMGW, not the current genocide, is the biggest threat to our security.

 

[weller2]

I had always thought a buck a watt was the holy grail of solar panels. Now you say someone in Africa can buy a 75-watt panel for $25? You mean somehow the price (even in small quantities) has fallen to 33 cents a watt? I would love to buy solar panels at that price. Do I have to travel to Africa to do that?

$0.39/W in US: sunelec.com/solar-panels/sun-435w-laminates-grade-b.html

Note it’s the cells not the module. But if you have the cells, a mechanically inclined person can make a makeshift module for close to zero cost.

 

[Ridgerunner]

expensive

.

A hand-held computer costs even less, but that doesn’t mean you can heat your home in North Dakota with them or fire a blast furnace with them. Nor, it appears, can you in Germany, which is why Germany found “renewables” too expensive and are now increasing their use of brown coal; the dirtiest coal there is.